No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1155 Green Meadow Dr - 239121403001INDIVIDUAL 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. 2203-02 BP NO. 14310 OWNER: CRAIG AND KIM ROGERS PHONE: 970-704-0777 MAILING ADDRESS: 151 SUMMIT DRIVE, CARBONDALE, CO 81623 APPLICANT: SAME PHONE: SYSTEM LOCATION: 850 GREEN MEADOW DRIVE, CARBONDALE TAX PARCEL NO. 2391-214-03-001 LICENSED INSTALLER: ZAMORA EXCAVATING, JOE ZAMORA LICENSE NO. 19-02 PHONE: 970-963-2553 DESIGN ENGINEER: HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, ROGER NEAL PHONE NO. 970-945-8676 INSTALLATION HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR A 6 BEDROOM RESIDENCE 2500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK, 2383 SQUARE FEET OF ABSORPTION AREA CREDIT, VIA 77 INFILTRATOR UNITS (DESIGN CALLS FOR 80 UNITS) AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN DATED 6/3/02. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: INSTALL AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN, WITH A CLEANOUT BETWEEN THE TANK AND THE HOUSE, AND INSPECTION PORTALS IN EACH TRENCH. RAKE ALL TRENCH SURFACES TO PREVENT THE SMEARING OF SOILS AND DO NOT INSTALL IN WET WEATHER. DO NOT BACK FILL WITH ANY COBBLES LARGER THAN 8 INCHES IN DIAMETER. BE SURE TO MAINTAIN ALL APPLICABLE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS. 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 THE SEPTIC YST,E�M� HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND APPROVED. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: (,t.t/I✓ DATE: AUGUST 9, 2002 CONDITIONS: I. ALL INSTALLATIONS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE EAGLE COUNTY INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM REGULATIONS, ADOPTED PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GRANTED IN 25-10-104, 1973, AS AMENDED. 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: 2387 SQUARE FEET (VIA 77 INFILTRATOR UNITS PER DESIGN ) INSTALLED CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK: 2500 GALLONS IS LOCATED 110 DEGREES AND '_ FEET — INCHES FROM THE CLEAN -OUT ON THE SOUTH SIDF OF THF. HnTTSF- COMMENTS: THE FINAL INSPECTIONS WERE DONE BY THE. DFSTGN F.NGTNFFR ON OCTnRF.R 10, 2002, AND gmm mp MERRY nF EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ON ncTnRF.R 16, 9002 THIS SvSTEM is LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE A SIX BEDROOM RESIDENCE. ANY ITEM NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE I CTED FOR$ F OVAL OF SYSTEM IS MADE. ARRANGE A RE -INSPECTION WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL DATE: OCTOBER 29. 2002 SE-P-20--0001 10:23A FROM:EAGLE COUNTY ENV HER 9703288788 TO:919709632396 P:1/5 Incomplete Applications Will NOT Be Accepted (Site Plan MUST be attached) ISDS Permit # oL�3 - U ,2— Building Permit # 14.5 /Q - 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 REINSPECTION 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: MAILING ADDRESS: -PPLICANT/CONTAC LICENSED SYSTEMS ,ati 0 -/- T V _ f� / Syvr►mi'� Ui[ • PHONE: 170,V'0%77 PERSON: PHONE: 2L CONTRACTOR: �.. %L(r PHONE: qfg- 2,s5" 3 COMPANY/DBA : ()D t/'p,ADDRESS: *************************************************************************** PERMIT APPLICATION IS FOR: ()� NEW INSTALLATION ( ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR LOCATION OF PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM: Legal Description: Tax Parcel Number: �R_3411 a 14 ®3 ego 1 Lot Size: 4/- ©3 acr�5 Physical Address; MEQ BUILDING TYPE: (Check applicable category) ()o Residential/Single Family Number of Bedrooms ( ) Residential/Multi-Family* Number of Bedrooms ( ) Commercial/Industrial* Type *These systems require design by a Registered Professional Engineer TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (Check applicable category) (K Well ( ) Spring ( ) Surface ( ) Public Name of Supplier: A3A?=n /L� rt < j�'� 31 APPLICANT SIGNATURE: Date: AMOUNT PAID: 350, RECEIPT 0 21 ( 3 DATE: CHECK #: jFr 712-6 CASHIER: 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 October 30, 2002 Raymond P. Merry, REHS Director Craig and Kim Rogers 151 Summit Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 RE: Final of ISDS Permit #2203-02, Tax Parcel #2391-214-03-001. Property location: 850 Green Meadow Drive, Carbondale, CO. Dear Mr. & Mrs. Rogers: This letter is to inform you that the above referenced ISDS Permit has been inspected and finalized. Enclosed is a copy to retain for your records. This permit does not indicate compliance with any other Eagle County requirements. Also enclosed is a brochure regarding the care of your septic system. Be aware that later changes to your building may require appropriate alterations of your septic system. If you have any questions regarding this permit, please contact the Eagle County Environmental Health Division at (970) 328-8755. Sincerely, iv"'t Janet Kohl Eagle County Environmental Health Department ENCL: Informational Brochure Final ISDS Permit cc: files OLD COURTHOUSE BUILDING, 551 Broadway, P.O. Box 179, Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 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 Date: August 9, 2002 TO: Zamora Excavating Raymond P. Merry, REHS Director FROM: Environmental Health Division RE: Reissuance of Individual Sewage Disposal System Permit 92203-02. Tax Parcel #2391-214-03-001. Property Location: 850 Green Meadow Drive, Carbondale, CO., Rogers residence. Enclosed is your ISDS Permit #2203-02, and a field copy of the engineer design stipulated on the permit from the engineer. 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 to 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 High Country Engineering, Derek Walter OLD COURTHOUSE BUILDING, SS Broadway, P.O. Box 179, Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 October 11, 2002 Eagle County Environmental Health Department Attn: Ray Merry P. O. Box 179 Eagle, CO 81631 Re: Lot 18, Sopris Mesa Subdivision, Eagle County, Colorado HCE File Number 2021054.59 Dear Ray: On October 10, 2002, High Country Engineering personnel observed the construction of the ISDS for the Rogers Residence located on Lot 18, Sopris Mesa Subdivision in Eagle County, Colorado. One 2500-gallon septic tank (labeled 2000-gallon, but with an additional expansion ring) with baffle and 77 standard Infiltrator units were being installed in a bed configuration. Minimal backfilling had taken place. The contractor had misread the plan and was in the process of only installing 70 units rather than the designed 80 units. Due to various boundary constraints, it was decided that the system would consist of the minimum 77 units in a non -uniform trench configuration of 14,15,16,16, and 16 units. The contractor was also advised to rake the sidewalls clean of soil smears. I have enclosed pictures of the system and an as -built drawing for your convenience. If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, RECEIVED HIGH COUNTRY Roger 13- Neal, P.E. Project Manager RDN/djw G, INC. OCT 15 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT 1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101 14 Inverness Drive East Suite D-136 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Englewood, CO 80112 Telephone (970) 945-8676 - Fax (970) 945-2555 Telephone (303) 925-0544 - Fax (303) 925-0547 HHepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. tech Glen County Road 154 G( oPGlenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945-7988 April 23, 2002 Fax: 970-945-8454 hpgeo@hpgeotech.com Craig Rogers 151 Summit Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Job No. 101 797 Subject: Supplemental Percolation Testing, Lot 18, Sopris Mesa, Eagle County, Colorado Dear Mr. Rogers: As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., performed additional percolation testing at the subject site. The work was done in addition to our agreement for professional services to you, dated November 30, 2001. We previously performed a subsoil study for foundation design and percolation testing at the subject site and reported our findings January 16, 2002, Job No. 101797. Six percolation test holes were excavated adjacent to Pit 1 (P7, P8 and P9) and Pit 2 (P4, P5 and P6). The subsoils encountered in Pit 1 and Pit 2 consisted of about 1 foot of topsoil overlying sandy clay to the bottom pit depths fo 8 feet. The pit and percolation test hole locations are shown on Figure 1. The percolation test holes were presoaked with water on April 18, 2002 and testing was done on April 19, 2002. The percolation test results are summarized on Table I. Based on the subsurface conditions and the percolation test results, Eagle County may require that the septic disposal system be designed by a civil engineer. The percolation tests performed in the area of Pit 2 were significantly faster than at Pit 1. The clay soils in Pit 2 were generally more sandy and lower density than the clay soils encountered in Pit 1. If you have any questions, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. ` Louis E. Eller �ua�aarr Reviewed By: Daniel E. Hardin, P.11 s ®k, LEE/djg attachments �''`ri, ss�} N A L `' LEGEND: 0 GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE LOT 18 APPROXIMATE SCALE 1 " = 500 P 7 r � _ PQ8 J � I BUILDING I PIT 1 ENVELOPE I P 9- 1 1 I I I I i I I I LOT 19 2,PROFIL I �P 6 l� P 5- PIT 2 I �j P 4 J- Z& PERCOLATION TEST HOLE FOR THIS STUDY. PERCOLATION TEST HOLE FOR PREVIOUS STUDY. 1 101 797 I GEOWEOCHNICALWINC. I ANDAPERCO ATIONL TESTOHOLES S I Fig. 1 I HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE I PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 101 797 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) P4 48 30 30 15 15 15 15 6 3/4 5 1 314 26 5 3 3/4 1 1 /4 7 6 1 /2 1 /2 6 1 /2 6 1 /2 6 5 1 /4 3/4 5 1 /4 4 3/4 1 /2 P5 40 30 30 15 15 15 15 6 3/4 4 1 /4 2 1 /4 23 4 1 /4 2 1 /4 2 6 3/4 6 3/4 6 5 1 /4 1 3/4 5 1 /4 4 1 /2 3/4 4 1 /2 4 1 /2 P6 46 30 30 15 15 15 15 6 1 /4 4 2 1 /4 16 4 2 1 /2 1 1 /2 8 6 3/4 1 1 /4 6 3/4 5 3/4 1 5314 43/4 1 4 3/4 4 3/4 Note: Percolation 'test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on April 18, 2002. Percolation tests were conducted on April 19, 2002. The average percolation rate is based on the last three readings of each test. HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE I PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 101 797 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) P7 48 30 30 30 30 7 314 7 1 /4 1/2 40 7 1 /4 6 1 /4 1 6 1/4 5 3/4 1/2 5 3/4 5 3/4 P8 40 30 30 30 30 7 6 314 1 /4 120 6 3/4 6 1/4 1/2 6 1 /4 6 1 /4 6 6 0 P9 48 30 30 30 30 6 5 3/4 1 /4 180 5 3/4 5 1/2 1/4 5 1/2 5 1/2 0 5 1/2 5 1 /4 1 /4 Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on April 18, 2002. Percolation tests were conducted on April 19, 2002. The average percolation rate is based on the last three readings of each test. C�tech January 16, 2002 Craig Rogers 151 Summit Drive Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945-7988 Fax:970-945-8454 hpgeo@hpgeotech.com Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Job No. 101 797 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed Residence, Lot 18, Sopris Mesa Subdivision, Missouri Heights, Eagle County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Rogers: 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 November 30, 2001. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in. this report. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. previously conducted a preliminary subsoil study and geologic hazards evaluation for the Sopris Mesa Subdivision, report dated October 23, 1997, Job No. 197 495. Proposed Construction: The proposed residence will be a two story wood frame structure over a basement level or crawlspace and located within the building envelope shown on Fig. 1. The attached garage and basement floors are proposed to be slab -on - grade. Cut depths are expected to range between about 4 and 8 feet if a basement level is constructed. Foundation 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 proposed to be located downhill to the southwest of the building envelope. 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 was vacant at the time of our field work. The ground surface in the building envelope is relatively flat to gently sloping down to the south. There is about 2 feet of elevation difference across the building envelope. An irrigation ditch is located along the southern portion of the lot. The lot 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 foot of topsoil, consist of Craig Rogers January 16, 2002 Page 2 stiff to very stiff sandy clay to the pit depths of 8 feet. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the clay soils taken at a depth of 4 feet, presented on Figs. 3 and 4, generally indicate low compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading and a low to moderate expansion potential when wetted. The sample from Pit 2 at 6 feet showed no expansion potential and relatively high compressibility upon additional 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. Pits excavated in the area of Lot 18 as part of the preliminary study encountered similar soils and no groundwater to the excavated depths of 81/2 and 9 feet. 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 2,500 psf and a minimum dead load pressure of 800 psf for support of the proposed residence. The soils have variable settlement/heave potential after wetting and there could be some post -construction foundation movement if the bearing soils become wet. The settlement/heave potential of the soils at bearing level should be evaluated at the time of construction. Precautions should be taken to prevent wetting of the bearing soils. 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 42 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 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 60 pcf for the on -site soil as backfill. Floor Slabs: The on -site soils possess an expansion potential and slab heave could occur if the subgrade soils were to become wet. Slab -on -grade construction may be used provided precautions are taken to limit potential movement and the risk of distress to the building is accepted by the owner. A positive way to reduce the risk of slab movement, which is commonly used in the area, is to construct structurally supported floors over crawlspace. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, nonstructural floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Interior non -bearing partitions resting on floor slabs should be provided with a slip joint at the bottom of the wall so that, if the slab moves, the movement cannot be transmitted to the upper structure. This detail is also H-P GEOTECH Craig Rogers January 16, 2002 Page 3 important for wallboards, stairways and door frames. Slip joints which will allow at least 11/2 inches of vertical movement are recommended. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. Slab reinforcement and control joints 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 immediately beneath basement level slabs -on -grade. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with less than 50 % passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2 % passing the No. 200 sieve. The free -draining gravel will aid in drainage below the slabs and should be connected to the perimeter underdrain system. Required fill beneath slabs should consist of a suitable imported granular material such as road base. The fill should be spread in thin horizontal lifts, adjusted to at or above optimum moisture content, and compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density. All vegetation, topsoil and loose or disturbed soil should be removed prior to fill placement. The above recommendations will not prevent slab heave if the expansive soils underlying slabs -on -grade become wet. However, the recommendations will reduce the effects if slab heave occurs. All plumbing lines should be pressure tested before backfilling to help reduce the potential for wetting. Underdrain System: Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in the area and where clay soils are present 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, 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 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. Surface Drainage: Positive exterior surface drainage is an important aspect of the project to prevent wetting of the soils beneath the building. 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. Drying could increase the expansion H-P GEOTECH Craig Rogers January 16, 2002 Page 4 potential of the clay soils. 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. Free -draining 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 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in pavement and walkway areas. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation, such as sod, should be located at least 5 feet from the building. Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on January 10, 2002 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 about 1 foot of topsoil overlying sandy clay to the pit depth of 8 feet. The percolation test results are presented in Table II. The percolation test results indicate infiltration rates between 90 and 180 minutes per inch with an average of 120 minutes per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, we recommend a civil engineer be engaged to design the 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 Craig Rogers January 16,2002 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 - PAWLAK G ° INC. ,a f� 2-7' 7 �• Jordy Z. Adams n, J Reviewed by:"c'°°°!,'.`.a°° Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. JZA/ksw attachments H-P GEOTECH GREEN MOUNTAIN DRIVE P 1 A LOT 18 I I ■ I BUILDING I PIT 1 ENVELOPE I I I I I I I I i I i I PROFILE I I ■ PIT I P 2� PIT 2 I � I 1 r ♦ APPROXIMATE SCALE 1"=50' P 3. A LOT 19 1 101 797 1 GEOTrECHNICALWINC. I AND PERCOLATION ORATORY TEST HOLES S I EIg' 1 I PIT 1 PIT 2 PROFILE PIT 0 we=12.9 0 DD=109 —200=95 N LL=47 a) PI=31 Li WC=12.7 WC=9.2 1 5 DD=109 DD=103 5 t WC=8.9 DD=95 1 10 10 _ LEGEND: TOPSOIL; sandy clay, organic, slightly moist, brown. CLAY (CL); slightly sandy to sandy, scattered basalt cobbles, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist moist, brown, slightly calcareous, slightly porous, medium to high plasticity. 2" Diameter hand driven liner sample. NOTES: 1. Exploratory pits were excavated on January 9, 2002 with a Cat 420D backhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory pits were not measured and logs of exploratory pits are drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory pit locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavating. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content ( % ) DD = Dry Density ( pcf ) —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve LL = Liquid Limit ( % ) PI = Plasticity Index ( % ) 101 797 1 GEOWEOCHNICALWINC. I LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 2 I 3 2 bt c _o c v a x w I 0 c 0 1 a E 0 U 2 1 c 0 c 0 0 a x w I c 1 0 a, a� a 2 E 0 U N Moisture Content = 12.7 percent Dry Density = 109 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From:Pit 1 at 4 Feet Expansion upon wetting 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf of. Sandy Clay mill■■Sample E111111111��mm ni Dui �n �mi i 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 101 797 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE II PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 101 797 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL .(INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) P-1 31 30 9 1/2 8 1/2 1 90 8 1/2 8 1/2 8 8 0 8 7 1/2 1/2 P-2 38 30 9 8 1 180 8 7 3/4 1 /4 7 3/4 7314 0 7 3/4 7 1/2 114 P-3 39 30 8 1/2 7 1 1/2 90 7 6 3/4 1 /4 6 3/4 6 1/2 1/4 6 1/2 6 1/2 Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on January 9, 2002. The percolation test holes were covered with rigid foam insulation to protect against freezing. Percolation tests were conducted on January 10, 2002. The average percolation rates were based on the last three readings of each test. C 1 5 0 7 Moisture Content = 8.9 percent Dry Density = 95 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay From: Pit 2 at 6 Feet No movement upon wetting 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 101 797 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK SMELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. r- rn r 0 O z m O' F- -J D U) W VJ w LL O a � x F o J V U � O 2 m c ca m U U U A 'D > _0 — t0 (m m co N In N ❑ w w 7 _ F LL W Z LL oa ¢ aN Z 0 ~n D O U U X F a o o J z — `— M � J a cc W W J V L�o W ? N � N LO N a y a a Z Qo Z O N F-. Q ❑ Q cc iJ J w >o a C¢'J a F' o z a dT O 0) O co O � 2 a- o w — N z o CT) i-I N cy) a o o 2 Z U N r N m 00 Z O = w w CO < ❑ U O J W J g Q N z F .— N 0 m ISDS Permit # as �l� Date I v Tal Insoeet on Ceteness jForm = Tank is Son gal. Tank Material Tank is located a ,S" ft. and Ilb degrees —.� (ps....ec 1�eaostl Tank is located ft. and degrees from {puzomma of �.na..rtcl IX Tank set level. Tank lids within 8" of finished grade. V" size of field 2L327 ft2units %gj�� lineal ft_ . Technology �dc•� -.� I,� ��S �Cleanout is installed in between tank and house(+ 1/100ft). "-""There is a "T" that goes down, 14 inches in the inlet and outlet of the tank: .Inlet. and outlet is sealed with tar tape, rubber gasket etc.a� 4NS'i� o,f T k has two =.dmpartments with the.;=•7��yege -.-:c pa tment closest to the..,:;,.t1i house. M+dcsa*ttre di Lance and relative direp aA to:; €a.elA, Z Depth of field. 3-1 ft _ -Soil interface raked. Inspection portals at the -end of each trench.. Proper distance to setbacks. Chambers properly installed as per manufacturers specifications. (Chambers latched, end plates properly installed, rocks 'removed from /trenches, etc.) ✓ Type of pipe used for building sewer Line!SOf leach fiel .�. Other Inspection meets reauirementn. .4 . —_ Copy form to installer's file if reeomendations for improvement Pere suggested. ACTION TAKW : setbacks Well Potable House Property Lake Dry Tank Drain Water Lines line Stream Gulch Field 100 25 20 10 50 25 10 10 50 10 5 10 50 10 * 10 - ESE--COUNTY-Siff; RML-FH P.O. BOX 179 EAGLE, CO 81631 YMUUUC; 1104-1 JWAWII]tel11 Cam- 1 TiMPlV IV[ I. 1---Ll—�-OVIF(L}O.lOV SHEET NO Dp CALCULATED BY. DATE CHECKED BY DATE SCALP IL vol 4 wM1. 0 ����� '�i y� i GrjT•.LY�j`_T.j � "]�(.1'�� -+a � i 1J. y.. �J_ - yi ••/`�`.�\ F1�.. -. � ��5 �y� Z,,. �� _ I• \ i�i lrr� ✓�,,r KR � � •'�•� •hri �i ";ill � .) t I 1 ,yt� �/�!,,�r s=�W��'�Y•r' s ( �. �i _' j � � � � �'T _ •it 3 • Or a iy 41 t �,_. i ,, `�� j1 j� .I ,•� _ A �- f �i ` t•?-L L"rCF/ At _ ' � ` S• `i, -ilk • ! ,� � � _ , r _ yi. v` � ` .; `- Y,e :. "'i 4.. J ��4`. � � is i � .�•" 'tit + 'a r � ��i •# G r'KK. • � � try .' ' �� „R.,,.•.. - �•, ,�i*, ... •-� 1,. f�`.' - _ •tip _ ti era-'ti�•�, ♦♦YY � •�... 2203-02 Tax #2391=214-03-001 JOB NAME Lot #18, Sopris Mesa ROGERS 850 Green Meadow Drive, Carbondale JOB NO,8 P — )L OB BILL TO DATE TART`ElD DATE COMPLETED DATE BILLED Z v ! ' . ' ` -" r V'Ar_e�-7nosl r < 6 n 166"s '00 r UA 'L N1 . Z C/ JQ&. l Ova 1 -- r I�. f 0 , cm 4 0 _ JOB COST SUMMARY TOTAL SELLING PRICE r 1. TOTAL MATERIAL oe r G(/-- i� �l r.-�, .� �S 6� --7�-� _ TOTAL LABOR INSURANCE Iuu SALES TAX . MISC. COSTS i � I I'd '�^ T /� Ivsr ry s ! TOTAL JOB COST rrn v vi c s',Low .� ,� -� GROSS PROFIT �r LESS OVERHEAD COSTS % OF SELLING PRICE - NET PROFIT JOB FOLDER Product 278 ;� t .i �yvc r� j� `ti l <, 7 f in c1�— y ei i U! —JOB FvOLDli§ on. -Me Emma II Ij I -- • ,� � -= � � T ` r"'• ', ,� _ _ r Y `_�� - ARM I N • Q— JO��h.�- 85 Printed In U$.A a, 6072 �s 1� J 40 a ` Recycled Content 10% Post•Consumer GREEN MEADOW DRIVE< Av%LT JA 7130 O \ O \ ULIN I KAL KAIN UI--1 \ 20' TRAIL EASEMENT PROPERTY BOUNDARY i GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 20 ft. t£ 3 a t SAME MINTY T H .F F s Ot low" 2 n 1 SITE PaAIN 4 :. . ` k IM . Now r n t '.• I :.: A -. :: " is cops � Y i t .:..: • .: k ! ... Am 7 21 r:# VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1 "=2000' C4ENEPAL NOTES 1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY REGULATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, EVEN THOUGH ALL SUCH REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH SPECIFIC DETAILS AS ARE REFERRED TO IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED REGULATIONS. 2, FLOW FOR BED: 6 BEDROOMS * 2 PERSONS/BEDROOM * 75 GALLONS/PERSON/DAY IS: 900 GPD = AVERAGE DAILY FLOW. DESIGN FLOW = 1.5 * AVERAGE = 1350 GPD (Q) ***INCREASE BY 20% FOR USE OF GARBAGE GRINDER, Q=1620 GPD*** SEPTIC TANK: MINIMUM TOTAL TANK SIZE: Q * 1 DAY/24 HRS * 30 HRS = 2025 GPD INSTALL ONE 2500-GALLON CONCRETE TANK WITH BAFFLE ***INSTALL EFFLUENT FILTER IN SEPTIC TANK OUTLET*** STANDARD ABSORPTION AREA: A = DESIGN FLOW APPLICATION RATE BASED ON PERCOLATION APPLICATION RATE TEST RESULTS OF 16, 23 AND 26 MPI. 1620 GPD = 2383 SF 0.68 GPD SF USE OF STANDARD INFILTRATOR UNITS IN TRENCH CONFIGURATION: 50% REDUCTION- (2383 S.F.*0.50) ® 15.5 S.F,/UNIT, 77 UNITS REQUIRED. INSTALL 5 ROWS AT 16 UNITS PER ROW. 3. CLEAN OUTS ARE REQUIRED AT ALL BENDS AND AT LEAST EVERY 100 FEET ALONG THE HOUSE SEWER. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING ALL WATER TIGHT COMPONENTS, PRIOR TO THE ABSORPTION AREA, TO PREVENT INFILTRATION. 5. TOPSOIL COVER MAY BE VARIED (WITH 1 FOOT MINIMUM) TO ALLOW LANDSCAPING. 6. INSTALL RISERS AS NECESSARY TO BRING ALL ACCESS POINTS TO WITHIN ONE-HALF FOOT OF FINAL GRADE. 7. LOCATIONS OF ALL COMPONENTS MAY BE VARIED AS NECESSARY AS LONG AS ALL MINIMUM DISTANCES AND SLOPES MEET THOSE REQUIRED. 8. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE OF SURFACE WATER AWAY FROM ABSORPTION FIELD AREA USING DRAINAGE SWALES AS NECESSARY. 9. SOILS AND PERCOLATION INFORMATION PROVIDED BY H.P. GEOTECH, JOB #101 797, DATED APRIL 23, 2002. 10. THIS DRAWING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ISDS PERMIT. PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED FROM APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY OFFICIALS. ENGINEER MUST OBSERVE CONSTRUCTED SYSTEM BEFORE BACKFILL AND PROVIDE REPORT TO COUNTY. 11. THIS SYSTEM IS SIZED FOR TYPICAL DOMESTIC WASTES ONLY, BACKWASH OR FLUSHING FLOWS FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS UNITS OR WATER SOFTENERS OR FILTERS SHOULD NOT BE INTRODUCED INTO THIS SYSTEM. 12. SITE PLAN INFORMATION FROM MATA DESIGN COMPANY, VIA EMAIL, MAY 15, 2002. 13. INSTALL BLUEBOARD INSULATION OVER SEWER PIPE WHEREVER DEPTH IS LESS THAN 5.0 FEET, 14. THE ENGINEER SHALL BE CONTACTED FOR SITE INSPECTION PRIOR TO BACKFILLING OF SYSTEM COMPONENTS. 15. DESIGN OF ABSORPTION TRENCHES BASED ON SOIL PROFILE INDICATING 1' TOPSOIL OVERLYING SANDY CLAY TO A PROFILE DEPTH OF 8-FEET, SAL AB30RP 110N TRENCH NOTES 1. ABSORPTION LATERALS SHALL NOT EXCEED 100-FEET IN LENGTH. 2. THE BOTTOM OF EACH ABSORPTION TRENCH SHALL BE LEVEL. 3. DRAINAGE SWALES ARE TO BE PROVIDED ABOVE AND AROUND TRENCHES, AS NECESSARY, TO PREVENT SURFACE RUNOFF FROM ENTERING ABSORPTION AREA. 4. TRENCH LATERALS SHALL FOLLOW CONTOURS. 5. INSTALL INFILTRATOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS. 6. TRENCH BOTTOM AND SIDEWALLS MUST BE RAKED TO REMOVE SOIL SMEARS INCURRED DURING EXCAVATION, 7. NO EXCAVATION OF ABSORPTION FIELD IS TO BE DONE DURING WET WEATHER AND USE OF RUBBER TIRE VEHICLES OVER ABSORPTION AREA IS PROHIBITED it BOULDERS EXISTING WITHIN THE TRENCH SHALL BE EXCAVATED AND BACKFILL SHALL CONSIST OF ONSITE SELECT OR PIT -RUN MATERIAL. 9. IN ALL TRENCH CONFIGURATIONS, SERIAL DISTRIBUTION SHALL BE USED INSTEAD OF EQUILATERAL DISTRIBUTION TO INCREASE SETTLING TIME AND PROTECT THE BACTERIAL BIO-MAT. 10. BEND IN TRENCH SHALL BE MADE WITH END PLATES AND 4"0 PVC OR MANUFACTURER'S PREFABRICATED BENDS. m z O U) W ry W Q O z N z J `I V W w Y Q p U n c0 U co z° _ co Wcm Z W 8 609 z w8cqc C� W w� 0 70 Z co � z�� O Q�00 � Y U O 0, 0 V m PW�s I ,00L 411 Q Lw Q Goo Q � U5 _ _ O m j m W� O d �< 0Cp z W w 0 c� �C) U Q U� w rc 55 W� w o adb ~ � 0 cc Z PROJECT NO. 2021054.0218 SHEET 1