The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About42 Taylor Creek Ct - 210716402007 - 2229-02ISINDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION P.O. Box 179 - 500 Broadway • Eagle, CO 81631 Telephone: (970) 328-8755 COPY OF PERMIT MUST BE POSTED AT INSTALLATION SITE. PERMIT NO. 2229-02 BP NO. 14461 OWNER: WARNER DEVELOPMENTS, INC. PHONE: 970-949-4360 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 958, AVON, CO 81620 APPLICANT: RICHARD SETH PHONE: 970-390-5525 SYSTEM LOCATION: 0042 TAYLOR CREEK CT., EDWARDS, CO TAX PARCEL NO. 2107-164-02-007 LICENSED INSTALLER: GRAEF CONSTRUCTION, ROBERT GRAEF LICENSE NO. 7-02 PHONE: 970-926-2059 DESIGN ENGINEER: JOHNSON, KUNKEL & ASSOCIATES, INC., JAMES KUNKEL PHONE NO. 970-328-6368 INSTALLATION HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR A 6 BEDROOM RESIDENCE 2-1000 GALLON SEPTIC TANKS WITH THE BAFFLE REMOVED FROM THE FIRST TANK INSTALLED IN SERIES, 2263 SQUARE FEET OF ABSORPTION AREA CREDIT, VIA 73 INFILTRATOR UNITS, AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN DATED 9/13/02 SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: INSTALL AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN, IN SERIAL DISTRIBUTION WITH A CLEAN -OUT BETWEEN THE TANK AND THE HOUSE, AND INSPECTION PORTALS IN EACH TRENCH. INSTALL THE TRENCHES AS SHALLOW AS POSSIBLE, AND RAKE ALL TRENCH SURFACES TO PREVENT THE SMEARING OF SOILS. BE SURE TO MAINTAIN ALL APPLICABLE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS, AND DO NOT INSTALL IN WET WEATHER. CALL EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND THE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR THE FINAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO BACK - FILLING ANY PART OF THE INSTALLATION, OR WITH ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE INSTALLATION. THE BUILDING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL TU&9EPTIC E S BEEN SPECTED AND APPROVED. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2002 CONDITIONS: — 1. ALL INSTALLATIONS MUST COMPLY WITH L REQUIREMENTS OF T EAGLE COUNTY INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM REGULATIONS, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GRANTED IN 25-10-104, 1973, AS ENDED. 2. THIS PERMIT IS VALID ONLY FOR CONNECTION TO STRUCTURES WHICH HAVE FULLY COMPLIED WITH COUNTY ZONING AND BUILDING REQUIREMENTS. CONNECTION TO, OR USE WITH ANY DWELLING OR STRUCTURE NOT APPROVED BY THE ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS SHALL AUTOMATICALLY BE A VIOLATION OF A REQUIREMENT OF THE PERMIT, AND WILL RESULT IN BOTH LEGAL ACTION AND REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT. 3. CHAPTER IV, SECTION 4.03.29 REQUIRES ANY PERSON WHO CONSTRUCTS, ALTERS OR INSTALLS AN INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM TO BE LICENSED. FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM (TO BE COMPLETED BY INSPECTOR): NO SYSTEM SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM REGULATIONS UNTIL THE SYSTEM IS APPROVED PRIOR TO COVERING ANY PORTION OF THE SYSTEM. INSTALLED ABSORPTION OR DISPERSAL AREA: SQUARE FEET (VIA ) INSTALLED TANK: GALLONS IS LOCATED DEGREES AND FEET INCHES FROM INSTALLED TANK: GALLONS IS LOCATED DEGREES AND FEET INCHES FROM COMMENTS: ANY ITEM NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE CORRECTED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM IS MADE. ARRANGE A RE -INSPECTION WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL DATE: c omplete Applications Will NOT Be Accepted (Site Plan MUST be attached) 1 ISDS Permit # Building Permit # APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICE - EAGLE COUNTY P. O. BOX 179 EAGLE, CO 81631 Eagle (970) 328-8755, Fax (970) 328-0349, El Jebel (970) 927-3823 * FEE SCHEDULE * APPLICATION FEE $350.00 * THIS FEE INCLUDES THE ISDS PERMIT, SITE EVALUATION (PERCOLATION TEST, * SOIL PROFILE OBSERVATION) AND FINAL INSPECTION * ADDITIONAL FEES MAY BE CHARGED IF A REINSPECT.ION IS NECESSARY, OR A * PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT OR CONSULTATION IS NEEDED * REINSPECTION FEE $47.00, PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT FEE $85.00 * MAKE ALL REMITTANCE PAYABLE TO: -"EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER" PROPERTY OWNER: Warner Developments, Inc. MAILING ADDRESS • P 0 Box 958, Avon, CO 81620 PHONE: 949-4360 APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON: Rich Seth PHONE: 390-5525 _LICENSED SYSTEMS CONTRACTOR: 6,416.4, PHONE: COMPANY/DBA: ADDRESS: PERMIT APPLICATION IS FOR: (x) NEW INSTALLATION { ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR, LOCATION OF PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM: Legal Description: Lot 16, Block 4, Filing 34, Murph 's Creek at Cordillera 210716402007 & 2-.1715307005 Tax Parcel Number: Lot Size: 2.955 Acres Physical Address: 0042 Taylor Creek Ct. , Edwards, Colorado 81632 BUILDING TYPE: (Check applicable category) (x) Residential/Single Family ( ) Residential/Multi-Family* ( ) Commercial/Industrial* Number of Bedrooms. 6 Number of Bedrooms Type *These systems require design by a Registered Professional Engineer TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (Check applicable category) ( ) Well ( ) Spring ( ) Surface (x) Public. Name o upplier: Yrrooc�t�,c� APPLICANT SIGNATURE : .� Date: 8- 95f 62_ 00 / AMOUNT PAID: J RECEIPT #: o ` DATE: I l J l Q CHECK #: / CASHIER: Ale- DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH (970) 328-8755 FAX (970) 328-8788 TDD: (970) 328-8797 TOLL FREE: 800-225-8136 www.eagle-county.com EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Raymond P. Merry, REHS Director Date: October 2, 2002 TO: Graef Construction of Vail FROM: Environmental Health Division RE: Issuance of Individual Sewage Disposal System Permit #2229-02. Tax Parcel #2107-164-02-007. Property Location: 0042 Taylor Creek Ct., Edwards, CO., ' Warner Development property. Enclosed is your ISDS Permit #2229-02, and a field copy of the engineer design stipulated on the permit. It is valid for 120 days, or for the duration of your current building permit for this property. The enclosed copy of the permit -must be posted at the installation site. Any changes in plans or specifications invalidates the permit -unless otherwise approved. Please:note any special requirements that may have been added: o the design by this department. Systems designed by a Registered Professional Engineer must be certified by the Engineer indicating that the system was installed as specified. Eagle County Environmental Health must also view the installation prior to back filling. Please call well in advance for your final inspection. Your TCO will not be issued until our office receives this certification from the engineer, and views the installation. Permit specifications are minimum requirements only, and should be brought to the property owner's attention. This permit does not indicate conformance with other Eagle County requirements. Please notify this office if you have not been contracted to perform this installation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Environmental Health Division at 328- 8755. cc: files Johnson, Kunkel & Associates, Inc. OLD COURTHOUSE BUILDING, 551 Broadway, P.O. Box 179, Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 w ,<-26-2001 03: 22P FROM: EAGLE COUNTY ENV HEA 970,3290349 TO: 29133S. P:2'3 f Engineer YSDS Flan Check List Completed and signed Individual Sewage Disposal System application. 2. ✓ Site Plan to scale, including lot lines, contours anal elevations, water courses, location of leach field, location of percolation test holes (if test was performed), soil profile hole location, lot improvement locations (such as drivew•av, well, garage, barn, swimming pool, pond, patio, etc.), seasonal drainage ditches, dry gulches, cut banks, local covenant requirements, and easement setbacks for utilities, as well as setbacks required to be observed 'between any of the system components and features on the lot. Also, illustrate potable water supply line locations. 3. ✓_ Soils tests including percolation test if one was performed, and soil profile classifications at different depths to at least S feet and. at least 4 feet below the bottom of the leach field, to verify that there are acceptable soils (no bedrock, ground -water, or excessively rocky 'soils) in vhhich septic tank effluent can be treated. 4. N /A Long terns acceptance rates for the leach field soil type classifications used to calculate the area of the lca.ch field.. S. ✓ Soil in profile hole should be observed for the presence soil mottling which would indicate poorly draining soils, or soils that are dry part of the year and wet part of the year. This would indicate the high ground water level. Please note on the soil profile log whether or not any soil mottling was observed at various depths. b. i✓ Septic tank is sized to provide a minimum of 30 hEaurs of retention time forthe total number of desired bedrooms at final build -out of the dwelling. Type of material that tank is to be made of is specified. There are 14 inch "T's" on the inlet and outlet .'lines. Note if an eft uent filter. is to be installed on the outlet line. 7. ✓ Septic tank location is accessible for pumping and the tank lids are within 8 inches of finished grade. 8. Trench bottoms and sidewalis are raked if there could be any smearing of the soil during, excavation. 9, ✓ No excavation of absorption field is to be done during wet weather and use gabber tire vehicles over leach field is restricted, to maintain good soil structure. 10. V*'� Clean -oat install-ed on building sewer between tank and house, at 90 degree turns and every, 100 feet if needed, 11. MIA List licensed installer on the application and snake sure that the installer doing the job is the one listed on the permit. If a change of installer must be made, notify Eagle County Environmental Health so that -the permit can be re -issued to the correct company. 12. ✓ If the system is in a bed configuration instead of a trench configuration, the system ,<-26-2a31 03:22P rROM-'EAGLE COUNTY FINI) HEA 970-M80349 T0:3291035 P`?%3' should be dosed (to improve effluent treatment) and the dosing charnber is sized so that the field would normally .receive 3-4 doses per day. 13. ✓ There is at least ore inspection portal located in each trench and if the leach field is in a bed configuration there are adequate inspection portals space throughout the area. 14. ✓ In all trench configurations, serial distribution is used instead of equilateral distribution. 15. ✓Tlie „rpes Of pipe for the building sewer Iine, and leach field are specified. Any areas that require a heavier walled pipe due to, for example, being located beneath a traffic acea, are designated, and the schedule of pipe required is listed. Use of pressure pipe (C900) if potable water pipelines cross or come within 14 feet of wastewater pipelines, and within 25 feet of the absorption field. G:\F, iN [SDS\FRMS&E,'Q&engi,-ieer check liet.wpd f q�13�oZ 1 -Y1, e- Cm- tech nepworm-1'awlak Geotechnical.Inc. .020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81601 Phone:970-945-7988 pgeoc-1 a.� SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT 16, BLOCK 4, FILING 34 NILTRPHY'S CREEK AT CORDILLERA EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 100 190 MARCH 17, 2000 g PREPARED FOR: CORDILLERA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION ATTN: DENNY STONER P.O. BOX 988 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 tr J1L1 , r Va\ 1 11 - I- All YY l.,iil? U-V V 1 L' 1r=V,1 UAJL,. IIN U. ` March 17, 2000 Cordillera Construction Corporation Attn: Denny Stoner P.O. Box 988 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Job No. 100 190 Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot 16, Block 4, Filing 34, Murphy's Creek at Cordillera, Eagle County, Colorado, Dear Mr. Stoner: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed residence at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed building area consist of about 1 1/2 to 2 feet of topsoil overlying stiff to very stiff sandy silty clay with fragments of basalt. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. Free water was measured in Boring 1 at a depth of 22 feet when checked 5 days following drilling. The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. The subgrade should be evaluated for settlement/heave potential at the time of construction. The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and presents our recommendations. It is important that we'provide consultation during design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of the geotechnical recommendations. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Jordy Z. Ada nson, Jr., P. i Rev. by: SLP JZA/ TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ..................:........ . . . . I PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................... 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 FIELD EXPLORATION 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 3 FOUNDATIONS ....... 3 FOUNDATION -AND RETAINING WALLS ..................... 4 FLOOR SLABS 6 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM .................................. 6 SITE GRADING ...................... 7 SURFACE DRAINAGE 7 PERCOLATION TESTING ................................. 8 LIMITATIONS ........ 8 FIGURE I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURES 4 & 5 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS TABLE II - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS H-P GEOTECH Pt,WOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot 16, Block 4, Filing 34, Murphy's Creek at Cordillera, Eagle County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to Cordillera Construction Corporation dated February 11, 2000. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. previously conducted a preliminary geotechnical engineering study for development of Filing 34 and presented our findings in a report dated November 25, 1998, 198 665. Preliminary percolation testing was performed in the filing and the results presented in a report dated December 10, 1998, Job No. 198 665. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the Iaboratory to determine their classification, ` compressibility and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the assumed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION Development plans for the lot were not available at the time of our study. We assume the residence will be a 2 to 3 story wood frame structure with a walkout lower level and located in the building envelope shown on Fig. 1. Ground floors could be slab -on -grade or structural over a crawlspace. Cut depths are expected to range between about 4 to 12 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of H-P GEOTECH the assumed tvpe of construction. The septic disposal system is assumed to be located downhill to the northwest of the building envelope. If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS The site was vacant. and covered with about 3 I/2 feet of snow at the time of our field work. The ground surface is gently rolling with a strong slope down to the northwest at grades between 10 % and 15 %. The terrain becomes steeper in the northwest portion of the lot at grades lip, to about 30 % . There is about 24 feet of elevation difference across the building envelope and 60 feet across the lot. Vegetation consists of aspen trees to the southwest of the building envelope and grass and weeds in the remainder. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on February 24, 2000. Two exploratory borings were driIIed in the building envelope and pne boring in the assumed dis osal area at the locations shown on F_ig,_1_ The borings were drilled to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a track -mounted CME-45 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 2 inch I.D. spoon sampler. The sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described by ASTM Method D=1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings, H-P GEOTECH Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 1 '/2 to 2 feet of topsoil overlying stiff to very stiff sandy silty clay with fragments of basalt. A boring drilled for the preliminary study near Lot 17 to the northwest, encountered basalt fragments up to boulder size in a sandy clay matrix to the drilled depth of 30 feet. Groundwater was measured in the boring at a depth of about 21 feet. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content, density, Atterberg limits and finer than sand size gradation analyses. Results of consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the clay soils, presented on Figs. 4 and 5, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. Water was measured in Boring 1 at a depth of_22 feet when checked 5 days following drilling. The subsoils were slightly moist to moist. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural subsoils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. H-P GEOTECH 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural subsoils should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. There could be some additional movement if the bearing soils become wetted. 2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for isolated pads. 3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection. Placement of foundations at least 48 inches below exterior grade is recommended in this area. 4) 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 also be designed to resist IateraI earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls" section of this report. 5) The topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to firm natural soils. The subgrade should be evaluated for settlement/heave potential at the time of construction. If water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete placement. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS Foundation walls and retaining structures which are laterally supported and can be expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 55 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which are separate from the residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the H-P GEOTECH - J - full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on -site soils. All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls. Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.35. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using -an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of footings should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. H-P GEOTECH - U - 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 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 at least 50 % retained on 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 mountainous areas and where clay soils are present 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, crawlspace and basement areas, 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 backf ll 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 Iowest 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. H-P GEOTECH SITE GRADING The risk of construction -induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the building is located in the less steep part of the lot as planned and cut and fill depths are limited. We assume the cut depths for the basement level will not exceed one level, about 10 to 12 feet. Fills should be limited to about 8 to 10 feet deep. Embankment fills should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to 95 % standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into the portions of the hillside exceeding 20 % grade. Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to 1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. 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 backfll 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 paved areas. H- GGEOTECH -8- Free-draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the on -site soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. PERCOLATION TESTING Percolation tests were conducted on February 29, 2000 to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile boring and three percolation holes were drilled at locations as shown on Fig. 1. The test holes were drilled with 6 inch diameter auger and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The holes were covered with rigid foam insulation to protect against freezing overnight. The soils encountered in the percolation holes are similar to those encountered in the Profile Boring shown on Fig. 2 and consist of about 2 feet of topsoil overlying stiff to very stiff sandy silty clay with fragments of basalt to the drilled depth of 10 feet. The percolation test results are presented in Table II. The percolation test results indicate an infiltration rate between 17 and 80 minutes per inch. The slower rate measured at P-2 could be due to snow melt dripping into the hole at the time of the test. Previous testing on the lot indicated an infiltration rate of 20 minutes per inch. Based on the test results, an infiltration septic disposal system appears feasible at the tested area. Additional I percntatic�n t ling sIculc�bP condi,ctP� ar trP �P1P�tP�t diosal ite for the final design. 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 eiiher expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings drilled at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the assumed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory borings and variations in the subsurface H-P GEOTECH I 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 so that 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 geotechnical engineer. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GE Jordy Z. Adamson, Jr.,, P.E. Reviewed by: Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. JZA/ksm J`j, C. 297 0 . y H-P GEOTECH APPROXIMATE SCALE 1" = 100' �O G� 9090 9100 \ LOT 15 9110 ` \ \ \ _ 9090 9120 \ \ 9130 LOT 17 9140 \ ' \\ ` ,\ `� 9100 9100 9150 1 \ \ \ LOT 16 \ P 2 BORING BORING 2��P\ %, 9110 oll r \ � LOT 13 �' \ , \ `y / � \ 9120 j \ BORING 1 /o/ � 9130 BUILDING 9150 ENVELOPE LOT 1 9140 i ON OF �100 190 GEOTOECHNICAL, INC.AONDAPIERCOLATIONLORATORY TEST HOLES RINGS Fig.1 BORING 1 BORING 2 PROFILE BORING ELEV. = 9135' ELEV. = 9122' ELEV. = 9116' 0 O 29/12 22/12 25/12 5 WC=16.5 5 DD=115 { CtGa/ ol 22/12 16/12 21 /12 10 WC=20.9 WC=24.8 10 DD=110 ol DD=97 a� -200=78 LL=77 ti PI=35 .L.. 10 t n 27/12 27/12 a 0 15 WC=29.2 15 a •'r DD=97 —200=21 Y• G101 �it 01 a :•_ 50/8 19/12 20 �Y 20 5 50/6 25 25 Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3. 100 190 GE WOR NI PAWLA LOGS OF `XPLORA I ORY BORINGS I Fig. 2 1 w TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, oraenic, firm, slightly moist to moist, brown, upper part frozen. CLAY (CL); silty, sandy, with basalt fragments, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist to. moist, brown, medium to high plasticity. CLAY AND SAND (CL—SC); silty, scattered basalt fragments, very stiff to dense, moist, brown and gray. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2—inch I.D. California liner sample. 29/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 29 blows of a 140—pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California sampler 12 inches. 5 — Free water level in boring and number of days following drilling measurement was taken. --0 Caved depth when checked on February 29, 2000. NOTES 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on February 24, 2000 with a 4—inch diameter continuous flight power auger 2. Locations of exploratory borinas were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided. Logs are drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. Water level readings shown on the logs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( % ) DD = Dry Density ( pcf ) —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. LL = Liquid Limit ( % ) PI = Plasticity Index (% ) �100 190 1 GEOTEC NICAL, INC LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 0 c 0 n 2 a� a E 0 3 4 C 1 c 2 0 M U3 a) a 3 E 0 U 4 Moisture Content = 20.97percenDry Density = 110Sample of: Sandy Clay with Fragments From: Boring 1 at 9 Feet IN No movement upon wetting 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 Moisture Content = 29.2 percent Dry Density = 97 pcf Sample of: Clayey Sand From: Boring 1 at 14 Feet No movement upon wettin 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 190 JHEPWORTH — PAWLAK I SWELL— CONSOLIDATION' TEST RESULTS GEOTECHNICAL, INC_ •4j Fia. 4 0 c 0 r 1 a� CL E 0 2 U 16, Moisture Content = 16.5 percent Dry Density = 115 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay with Bcsolt Fragments From: Boring 2 at 4 Feet i !EHtl 1 11 No movement upon wetting a I 0.1 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 1 100 190 1 GEPWORTH ICALAWLA SWELL —CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5 I 0 0 (n Cn w cr VJ w cc W co m c m i O ~ a a o w ID Z7 >- � cL m ? (a 4- fa U c Cf) a) U q U m >. -0 0 -a c ca cc c ca Cn U U Cn U`_ Cn c w W > - LL z W Z ¢ a Ua O h U U X F N N O a Z LO C+) i a J W m w a o J � o U H N J W �— co w a 2 N h Z c Z� N O F= a c a J i Q t Q O C- r LO H Q Z G Z G J 2 Q c w _ ~ N Lq CJ G z o (V ai N I' CN Z a m w = F= Q U O W J a � 2 ID TABLE II PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO, 100 1 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH DROP IN (INCHES) INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF WATER AVERAGE PERCOLATION (MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL LEVEL RATE (INCHES) (INCHES) (INCHES) (MIN./INCH) P-1 39 15 9 '/4 8 8 7 1 7 6 Y4 % 6 Y4 5 i/4 1 water added 11 9 Y2 7 3/4 1 3/4 7 % 63/4 1 P 2 6 3/4 6 3/4 17 ' 32 30 10 Y2 9 Yz 1 7 Y2 8 % % 8 3/4 8 '/4 Y2 Z 8 Y4 8 '/4 $0 P-3 35 15 17 15 '/2 1'/2 15 '/2 14 Yz 1 14 Y2 13 3/4 13 3/4 13 % 13 12 '/2 '/2 12 Y2 11 % % 11 % 11 '/4 Y2 24 < Note: Percolation test holes were drilled with a 6 inch diameter auger and soaked with water one day prior to testing. The holes were covered with rigid foam insulation to protect against freezing overnight. Test hole P-2 had snow melt dripping into the hole at the time of the test. The average percolation rate�was based on the last two readings of each test. 2229-02 Tax #2107-164-02-007 &005 JOB NAME_ Lot #16, Block 4, Filing 34, WARNER DEV. Cordillera Subdivision 0047-- JOB NO. 1 y� SOB LOCATION U BILL TO DATE STA TED DATE COMPLETED DATE BILLED Ole— T / P C3cZ / JOB COST SUMMARY d� TOTAL SELLING PRICE 0 3 t PAnted In USA JOB FOLDER Product 278 JOB FOLDER d DESIGN.SEP-TI-C-CO -a--LEGEND _ - - - _ -__0 E>QSTI t0 NG CONTOUR , - - - - EX! STING CONTOUR 2 - BLOCK 4 FILING. k vl o - ROPOSED CONTOUR -- _ _ -i . Q I v� I v� 0 v p I - = - - - PROPOSED CONTOUR 2 - - _ - -: - m - 00 a0 j PROPERTY UNE ROW LINE - _ . oC A Tcr ED IN SECTION_ 17mum Q 0 v W N I _ _ _ � N N . BUILDING EN TOWNSHIP 5-SOUTH,Mw RANGE 83 WE 4 F THE SIXTH M - n __ ----y--- -- -•= :EASEMENT � — UNE ,= DIRECTION of FLOW DIREC —/ .ST • • EAGLE COUNTY - COLO R > - _ , _ � - DETENTION POND _, - � � � _. PERCOLATION TEST HOLE PERGOLA _ _ ,_ - = � co O I` . � - _ — TP_ _ —_ - SOIL BORING TEST P IT - _ - _ - - MARK BENCH _ :. N N co 0 N f � PERCOLATION TEST HOLE AND SOIL BORING - - TEST PIT PER SUBSOIL STUDY 8Y - HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. - DATED MARCH 17 2000 - _ JOB :NO. 100 190 - - t INFILTRATOR - CALC ULATIONS ._ - - WASTEWATER - _ _ 00 GPD = 75 GAL SON A x 6 BEDROOMS 9 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING /D Y} SI ( �� _ _ _ FLOWRATE.= (2 PEOPLE PER BEDROOM) . TFLOW = 900 GPD - = PEAKING FACTOR = 1.5 = 1.5 x. 900 =1350 GPD - = CAPACITY - WASTE FOR 30 HOURS 1 GALLON 687.5 GALL 1350 GPD ZED TO HOLD PERCOLATION 7 = 25 M.P.I.(AVERAGE_ OF 3 SITES) _ -- _ RATE _ -: TRENCH BED A = 0/5 x (T)^1/2 - AREA Q = 1350 GPD - A = 1350 SF i O 0 n n co - _ rn rn ` - .. Li 0 o r' - Li — J 0inm Z O XX x x O O - - Q W _ Q , I E a 0. _ � a i Z .. U2 20' (TYP.)►�1 W _ 4-j 0 •c 'zz MV �WT+9109.00' ' 'r"I - / 20' TYP. y _ 11 INFLYRATOR SECTIONS a ►-� ' F / / \ (11 X IL25 - 6&751 / - a - - / 12 Wf1LTRATOR SECTIONS - INV OUT+9111.00' - 12X6.2575 ( 7 \ i RC/ELECT1t4 04FLTRATORSECTtONS 9 NLTRATOR SECTIONS 4 X 6.25 a7.50• Transformer = A _= / / _ 9 X 6.25 56_ZS t ^ F� O A r + ( _INV 120 T� , 7 ' = iNY OU 9 0 ('�� ►'� - . t .00 . � �. INF1L SECTIONS- 11 TRATOR / \ I.• v Ana — tee A - - / ♦ - _ - i . TABLE OF MINIMUM HORIZONTAL DISTANCES (IN FEET) BETWEEN COMPONENTS OF A SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM SPRING, POTABLE POTABLE DWELLING, PROPERTY SUBSOIL LAKE DRY SEPTIC WELLS, WATER WATER OCCUPIED LINES DRAINS WATER COURSE GULCHES TANK SUCTION SUPPLY SUPPLY BUILDING IRRIGATION DITCH LINES LINE CISTERN OR STREAM DISPERSAL SYSTEM rss f sss sss UTILIZING AEROSOL METHODS 100 10 50 125 10 0 25 10 10 SEEPAGE PIT OR SILT rrs rrs ;rss TRENCH 100 50 25 20 25 10 50 i25 6 ABSORPTION TRENCH. SEEPAGE BED, SAND FILTER, OR SUB— rrs rsr ;rss SURFACE DISPERSAL SYSTEM 100 25 25 20 10 10 50 25 6 UNLINED SAND FILTER IN SOIL WITH A PERCOLATION r RATE SLOWER THEN 60 100 _ 25 25 15 10 10 25 35 10 MINUTES PER INCH UNLINED OR PARTIALLY LINED EVAPOTRANSPIRATION SYSTEM -WASTEWATER POND, OR SURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEM OTHER 100 25 25 15 10 10 25 15 10 THAN AEROSOL LINED SAND FILTER 60 10 25 15 10 10 25 10 5 LINED EVAPOTRANSPIRATION FIELD OR LINES WASTEWATER - 60 10 25 15 10 10 25 10 5 POND PIT PRIVY OR VAULT PRIVY 10 25 ` 10 .50 10 25 15 10 -- OR VAULT SEPTIC TANKS, TREATMENT ss rs rs ss ss ss ss PLANTS, DOSING TANKS OR 50 ° 10 25 5 10 10 50 10 -- EFFLUENT LINES BUILDING SEWER *r sr s* ** 50 10 25 0 0 10 50 10 -- NOTE: THE MINIMUM DISTANCES SHOWN ABOVE SHALL BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE SYSTEM COMPONENTS AND THE PHYSICAL FEATURES DESCRIBED. WHERE SOIL, GEOLOGICAL OR OTHER CONDITIONS WARRANT, GREATER DISTANCES MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE LOCAL- BOARD OF HEALTH OR BY THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION PURSUANT TO C.R.S. 1973, 25-8-206 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE. AUTHORITY PRESCRIBED BY LAW AND RULES AND REGULATIONS IMPLEMENTAL OF SAID SECTION. FOR REPAIR OR UPGRADING OF EXISTING SYSTEMS WHERE THE SIZE OF LOT PRECLUDES ADHERENCE TO THESE DISTANCES, REPAIRED FACILITY SHALL NOT BE CLOSER TO WATER SUPPLY COMPONENTS THAN THE EXISTING FACILITIES. ' COMPONENTS WHICH ARE NOT WATER TIGHT SHOULD NOT EXTEND INTO AREAS OF THE ROOT SYSTEM OF NEARBY TREES. DISTANCES SHOWN SHALL NOT APPLY TO TREATMENT PLANTS OR EFFLUENT LINES WHERE RECYCLING IS PERMITTED. " CROSSINGS MAY BE PERMITTED WHERE PIPELINES ARE CONSTRUCTED OF SUFFICIENT STRENGTH TO CONTAIN FLOWS UNDER PRESSURE. •*' ADD 8 FEET ADDITIONAL DISTANCE FOR EACH 100 GALLONS PER DAY OF DESIGN FLOW OVER 1000 GALLONS PER DAY. V) C� _Z o_ � r• V) c0 m Q 1 1 O rn rn m 00 m o I I` r- (n O O - 00 to (o to in O co I I 00 00 N N to M O O n n O m w uj Q—! Z W O X a u� a� s~ z � a +� cti z cz z 0 0 . 1-1 `O U W W i~ ~ U .O A Z me Q' LLJ Q Of � z ~" O w � S o Cr U N O 4J r ~ cV Q 1-1 0 O