Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout461 Grange Ln - 239115101007INDIVIDUAL 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. 1904-99 BP NO. 12730 OWNER: ANNIE & ALAN MORRIS PHONE: 970-963-6006 MAILING ADDRESS: 153 DAKOTA MEADOWS, CARBONDALE, CO 81623 APPLICANT: JON BURNETT PHONE: 970-945-5125 SYSTEM LOCATION: GRANGE LANE, LOT 7 HOMESTEAD ACRES, CARBONDALE TAX PARCEL NO. 2391-151-01-007 LICENSED INSTALLER: HUGHES EXCAVATING, RANDY HUGHES LICENSE NO. 16-00 PHONE: 970-876-1983 DESIGN ENGINEER: HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL; HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, TIM BECK PHONE NO. 970-945-7988/970-945-8676 INSTALLATION HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR A 5 BEDROOM RESIDENCE 1500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK 2976 SQUARE FEET OF ABSORPTION AREA VIA 96 INFILTRATOR UNITS AS PER ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATION. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: INSTALL IN SERIAL DISTRIBUTION IN SIX (6) TRENCHES WITH SIXTEEN (16) INFILTRATOR UNITS IN EACH TRENCH WITH A CLEANOUT BETWEEN THE TANK AND THE HOUSE AND INSPECTION PORTALS IN EACH TRENCH. RAKE ALL TRENCH SURFACES TO PREVENT SMEARING OF SOILS, AND DO NOT INSTALL IN WET WEATHER. INSTALL IN SHALLOW TRENCHES -NO DEEPER THAN 2 FEET AS RECOMMENDED BY HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, TO ALLOW THE 12" MINIMUM COVER OVER THE INFILTRATOR UNITS. THE TRENCHES SHOULD BE SITED SUCH THAT THE SIZE OF THE FIELD COULD BE APPROXIMATELY DOUBLED IF NECESSARY IN THE FUTURE. BE SURE TO MAINTAIN A 116 FT SET -BACK FROM THE WELL TO THE LEACH FIELD. CALL EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FOR FINAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO BACK FILLING ANY PORTION OF THE INSTALLATION, OR WITH ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE INSTALLATION. BUILDING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT ISSUED UNTIL THE SEPTI YSTEM H CEI PR AL. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE: JUNE 7, 2000 CONDITIONS: 1. ALL INSTALLATIONS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REQ gN.T.S•OF-T-BE-E[C 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 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: 2976 SQUARE FEET (VIA 96 INFILTRATOR UNITS ) INSTALLED CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK: 1500 GALLONS IS LOCATED 54 DEGREES AND 126 FEET FROM THE rLEAN0111 AT THE HOUSE. COMMENTS: FINAL INSPECTION DONE BY RFATTiFR SA TAT nX nN 1111 y 29()9 THIS SYSTEM IS T ARCF ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE THE MAIN RRSTDRNCE AND THE CARE TAKER UNIT FOR A TOTAL OF FIVE BEDROOMS 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 _T < U ^ /� DATE: JULY 14, 2000 Incomplete -Applications Will NOT Be Accepted (Site Plan MUST be attached) ISDS Permit ,f` I M I -17 Building Permit APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICE-- EAGLE COUNTY P. O. BOX 179 EAGLE, CO 81631 328-8755/927-3823 (Basalt) * PERMIT APPLICATION FEE $150.00 PERCOLATION TEST FEE $200.00 * MAKE ALL REMITTANCE PAYABLE'. WO: "EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER" PROPERTY OWNER: A nn i 2 A lav, Morris MAILING ADDRESS: 153 Da�,a+a m Q0&U_)'-5 , Ca vl6ord oAe, PHONE: 9 63-6006-, APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON : Toy-, '6uy n e-` ' PHONE: ` ► ��' s � as ;( LICENSED SYSTEMS CONTRACTOR: PHONE: l03 COMPANY/ DBA : �5 v CQv�/�l . ADDRESS: 9 _y 6 C c) `P l!a VYj O h dai2 PERMIT APPLICATION IS FOR: (X) NEW INSTALLATION ( ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR LOCATION OF PROPOSED INDI(VIIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM: Legal Description: f 1� `�S`f� Q G S L& I '] Tax Parcel Number: a 3 1 � � O � � � � Lot Size: 73-s A Lane, �04 S. GOMMPhysical AddresorneerzAC BUILDING TYPE:. (Check applicable category) (A)-Residential/Single Family Number of Bedrooms (.) Residential/Multi-Family* Number of Bedrooms ( ) Commercial/Industrial* Type TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (Check applicable category) (�O Well ( ) Spring ( ) Surface ( ) Public Name of Supplier: *These systems require design by a Registe ed Professional -Engineer SIGNATURE: Q/L Date: AMOUNT PAID: RECEIPT #: DATE: CHECK #: /% CASHIER Community Development Department (970)328-8730 FAX (970) 328-7185 TDD (970) 328-8797 Email: eccmdeva@vail.net http: //www.eagle-county.com DATE: June 7, 2000 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO TO: Hughes Excavating Eagle County Building P.O. Box 179 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 FROM: Environmental Health Division RE: Reissuance of Individual Sewage Disposal System Permit #1904-99, Tax Parcel #2391-151-01-007. Property Location: 461 Grange Lane, Carbondale, CO., Morris residence. Enclosed is your ISDS Permit No. 1904-99. It is valid for 120 days. 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. If you have not been contracted to install this system please contact Eagle County Environmental Health. Also enclosed is the ISDS Final Inspection Completeness Form. The items on this form need to be completed before you call for your final inspection. Also, please note any special conditions which may have been placed on the permit. Do not back fill any part of the installation until it has been inspected. If all items are not completed, a reinspection fee of $42.50 must be paid before a reinspection is made. Please call our office well in advance to allow for scheduling of final inspection. Your building permit TCO will not be issued until final approval has been given for the ISDS Permit. 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. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Environmental Health Division at 328- 8755. cc: files Enclosures: ISDS permit # 1904-99; ISDS Final Inspection Completeness Form HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. January 28, 1999 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 Alan and Annie Morris 153 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Job No. 199 103 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed Residence, Lot 7, Homestead, Eagle County, Colorado Dear Mr. and Mrs. Morris: 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 January 6, 1999. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this report. Proposed Construction: At the time of our study, design plans for the residence had not been developed. The building and septic field are proposed roughly in the areas of the pits shown on Fig. 1. We assume the residence will be a one or two story wood frame, structure possibly over a basement level. Excavation for the building is assumec to have a maximum cut depth of about 4 to 6 feet below the existing ground surface. For the purpose of our analysis, foundation loadings for the structure were assumed to"' be relatively light and typical of the assumed construction. When building location grading and loading information have been developed, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in the report. Site Conditions: The site was vacant with 1 to 11/2 feet of snow cover at the time of field work on January 12, 1999. The ground's urface in the building area is relativel flat with a gentle slope down to the north, northeast becoming moderate near the northern property boundary. There is apparent minor site disturbance in the utility s easement to the north and there is a water well near the center of the lot as shown on the site sketch, Fig. 1. The lot is vegetated with grass, weeds, sagebrush and a small scrub oak grove in the southern portion of the property. Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by excavating two exploratory pits in the general building area and one profile pit in the septic disposal area at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The building and r Alan and Annie Morris January 28, 1999 Page 2 septic areas were identified in the field by the client, Mrs. Morris. The logs of the pits are presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered, below about 1 foot of topsoil, consist of medium plastic, slightly sandy clay. Results of swell -consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples taken from the pits are presented on Fig. 3. The slightly sandy clay samples showed a low to moderate expansion potential when wetted under relatively light loading. No free water was observed in the pits at the time of excavation and the soils were slightly moist. Foundation Recommendations: The expansion potential of the clay soils encountered in the pits could result in long term building movements if they were to become wet. Spread footings placed on the undisturbed slightly sandy clay designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf and a minimum dead load of 1,000 psf can be used for support of the proposed residence. We expect settlement/heave could be between about 1 to 2 inches depending on the depth and extent of wetting below the building. Footings should be a minimum width of 12 inches for continuous walls and 18 inches 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 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 clay soils could heave when wetted and cause distress to slab -on -grade construction. A positive way to reduce the risk of slab movement is to construct a structurally supported floor over crawlspace. Slab -on -grade construction can be used provided the owner is aware of potential heave and the risk of distress to the residence. 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 partition walls 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. Slip joints which H-P GEOTECH i Alan and Annie Morris January 28, 1999 Page 3 will allow at least 11/z inches of vertical movement are recommended. 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 less than 50 % passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be non -expansive and compacted to at least 95 % of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill should consist of imported granular 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 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/a feet deep. Surface Drainage: The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed: H-P GEOTECH Alan and Annie Morris January 28, 1999 Page 4 1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be avoided during construction. Drying could increase the expansion 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 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. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 5 feet from the building and beyond backfill limits. Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on January 13, 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 approximate 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, soaked with water one day prior to testing and covered with insulation to prevent freezing. The soils exposed in the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown on Fig. 2 and consist of medium plastic slightly sandy clay. The percolation test results are presented in Table II. The percolation test results indicate infiltration rates of 240 to 480 minutes per inch. A rate of 60 minutes per inch is the slowest rate typically acceptable for a conventional infiltration disposal system. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, an engineered septic disposal system will be needed. Other locations on the lot could be tested for possible more favorable percolation rates. 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 H-P GEOTECH Alan and Annie Morris January 28, 1999 Page 5 warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pits excavated at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified at once so re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on -site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical engineer. If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. N'L' Pl �Ci'•� S i • • • Steven L. Pawlak, P. 5222 Rev. By: DEH ljV OF co SLP/ksm attachments H-P GEOTECH HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE II PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 199 103 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 45 30 6 5 7/8 118 240. 5 7/8 5 3/4 118 5 3/4 5 314 0 5 3/4 5 1 /2 1 /4 P-2 48 30 5 1 /2 5 1 /4 1 /4 240 5 1/4 5 1/8 118 5 1/8 5 1/8 0 5 1/8 4 7/8 1/4 P-3 42 30 6 1 /2 6 3/8 1/8 480 6 3/8 6 1/4 1/8 6 1/4 6 114 0 6 1 /4 6 1 /8 1/8 NOTE: Percolation holes were hand dug in bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on January 12, 1999. The holes were protected from freezing overnight with rigid insulation. The percolation tests were performed on January 13, 1999. U z J a U_ 2 U W N 0 LU a J a a 0 a W CM O_ O z UJ J m Q F— vJ J D U) LU U) LLI H ca co co } U U U H 0 m cc cc (a U) U) U) ++ — L uj W _ F i 0 a 2 ZU)O U U H x LU °z N a C7 W U W a M U N N W Ln ¢ N Q H a a Z 0 Z� a 2 N O Q O 2 � W a � J } TT 7 ¢ y 0 0 2 G Q � W O 2 U S.. ~ m CO M N 0 c a a 0 J J a N ` APPROXIMATE SCALE LOT BOUNDARIES x, a� zl of P 3 PROFILE L� 0 ■PIT P 20 ■ PIT 2 1 0 1 1 P 1 LOT 7 , EXISTING WELL ■ PIT 1 GRANGE LANE HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS 199 103 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AND PECOLATION TEST HOLES Fig' 1 PIT 1 PIT 2 PROFILE PIT ELEV.=100' ELEV.=91.5' ELEV.=88' 0 0 WC=10.7 lQ WC=9.4 D 200=95 DD=1Ill LL=39 I 5 PI=27 5 I t �. WC=16.4 a n DD=109 a 10 10 LEGEND: TOPSOIL; slightly sandy silty clay, stiff, frozen, dark brown, organic. CLAY (CL); medium plasticity, slightly sandy, very stiff, brown to reddish brown, slightly porous and calcareous. (9 2" Diameter hand driven liner sample. NOTES: 1. Exploratory pits were excavated on January 12, 1999 with a backhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory pits are approximate and relative to the well casing. taping from features in the field. 3. Elevations of exploratory pits were measured by hand level and refer to ground surface of Pit 1 as 100 feet, assumed. Logs are drawn to depth. 4. The exploratory pit 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 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 ( % ) DO = Dry Density ( -pcf ) —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve LL = Liquid Limit ( % ) PI = Plasticity Index ( % ) 198 103 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 2 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. S R 2 c 0 .N c 1 0 Q x w I 0 c o_ .W U) N 1 L Q E 0 U 0A 3 c 0 c 0 0 Q x w I c 1 0 C5 N Q 2 E 0 U Moisture Content = 16.4 percent Dry Density = 109 pcf Sample of: Slightly Sandy Clay From: Pit 1 at 6 Feet Expansion upon wettin 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf Moisture Content = 9.4 percent Dry Density = 101 pcf Sample of: Slightly Sandy Clay From: Pit 2 at 3 Feet Expansion upon wetting 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 199 103 1HEPWORTH - PAWLAK SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, INC_ Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone:970-945-7988 Fax:970-945-8454 hpgeo@hpgeotech.com July 7, 1999 � not r}�� V� Alan and Annie Morris �Y \ 153 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Job No. 199 103 Subject: Percolation Test Results, Proposed Residence, Lot 7, Homestead, Eagle County, Colorado. Dear Mr. and Mrs. Morris: As requested, we have conducted percolation testing at the subject site to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. The results of our work are presented in this report. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. previously performed a subsoil study and percolation test at the site and presented our findings in a report dated January 28, 1999, Job No. 199 103. Three percolation test holes were hand dug just to the east of the previous percolation test area and soaked on July 6, 1999. The soils exposed in the percolation holes consist of silty sandy clay ranging from stiff at the top of the holes to hard at the bottom of the holes. The percolation test holes were typically 1 1/2 feet deep. No free water was encountered. Percolation tests were performed on July 7, 1999 by a representative of Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The percolation test results are sented on Table I. The percolation test results indicate an infiltration rate betwee 34 and 601 . utes per inch with an average rate of @minutes per inch. Based on the percolation test results, and our previous subsurface exploration, the tested area appears suitable for a mounded infiltration septic disposal system. If you have any questions or require further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK Steven L. Pawlak, P SLP/sd/ksm attachment cc: High Country INC. PZR 15222 �.' 7 4 e Spi • ��E OF CQL�� ineerin -- ttn: Tim Beck HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 199103 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 17 30 11 1 /2 7 1 /2 4 48 7 112 6 314 3/4 6 3/4 6 3/4 6 5 1 /2 1 /2 P-2 16 30 10 1 /4 6 3/4 3 1 /2 60 6 3/4 5 1/4 1-1/2 5 1/4 4 3/4 1/2 4 3/4 4114 1 /2 P-3 21 30 12 314 9 3/4 3 34 9 3/4 8 1/2 1 1/4 8 1/2 7 1/2 1 Note: Percolation holes were hand dug and soaked on July 6, 1999. Percolation tests were conducted on July 7, 1999. Received Aug-13-99 12:23pm from 970 945 2555 4 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH page 1 AUG-13-99 FRI 12;30 PK HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING FAX NO, 970 945 2555 P. 01/01 August 13, 1999 Alan and Annlo Morris Via Fax to 927-8858 153 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Re: IST)S for Proposed Residence, T,ot 7,1Tornesteai, Cagle County, C0 FICA, File Number 99004.29 Dcair Mr. and Mrs. Morriss: We havo reviewed the results of the two soils tests performed by HP Geotech. As we discussed, the first testing waa petibrind at deptlis of 42 to 48 inches below existing grade, and was performed in January. I't is our experience: that percolation tests performed daring very cold weather can have erratic results, oven though the ground is not frozen, and proper precautions are t'Ac,n to prevent, the tost voles from freezing. It is also our experience that.the upper soil horizons are often more permeable than the lower (deeper) horizons. Thorefore, it was suggested that additional testing during this summer, acid at a shallower depth, might produce a bolter percolation rate. The second rotmd of tests diet Indeed indicate a bettor percolation rate, one which could bo Wed with a standard trench type of system. Note that this rate only appears to be applicablo in the uppermost soil horizon. Therefore, we suggest that the trenebes be of minimum depth, i.e. approximat0y two fact* which would allow the minimutn_ of_12" oreover over Infiltrator units. We further recommend that a loading rate for clay be used : � �►�2, ��t+��p��dgy �t�x�s�i �r�t� -foot), and that an additional surety factor be applied. Iryou have any questions, or need additional information, please contact us. Sinceroly, I4101.1 COUNTRY hNCrINErERiltil'G, INC. 11 sotliy P. Hook, I'.E. Pr 'eut Manager TPBAoe ac: Michelle, Rasgle County Isnvironmental EIeratth via 4to 328-0349) 823 COOPER AVENUE • GLENWOOO SPRINGS, COLORADO t31801 Talephone (@70) 945-1367$ • Fax (9701945-2555 Ray Merry Morris Septic IS 1904 99 age P 1. From: Janet Kohl To: Ray Merry Date: 3/22/00 1:13PM Subject: Morris Septic IS-1904-99 I was reissuing this permit that Michele had sized, to a different installer as was indicated on the installer's application, and noticed how ridiculously large this system will be- 5625 sq' or 181 Infiltrator units! I don't know why she sized it so large! There is a letter in the file from High Country engineering. Would you please take a look at it before I redo it? I / k n �� f a', June 1, 2000 Alan and Annie Morris Via Fax to 927-8858 153 Dakota Meadows Drive Carbondale, CO 81623 Re: ISDS for Proposed Residence, Lot 7, Homestead, Eagle County, CO HCE File Number 99004.29 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Morris: This letter is a follow up on our letter report of August 13, 1999. Upon further review and further discussions with the owner as well as county personnel, we have concluded that a loading rate of 0.2 gallons per day per square foot may be overly conservative for the uppermost soil horizon. This surface soil should have a significant volume of dead organic material, as well as living roots, which will tend to increase percolation. In addition, placing the system at minimum depth should allow a significant amount of evapotranspiration to occur. A loading rate of 0.2 gpd/sf results in a field size equivalent to using a percolation rate of 625 minutes per inch (mpi) with the standard CDOH formula. As noted in the previous letter, the average percolation rate in the upper soil was 48 mpi. During discussions with county personnel, it was noted that a loading rate of 0.4 gpd/sf had been accepted in similar circumstances. I had previously come to a similar conclusion that a rate approximately twice the 0.2 gpd/sf could be reasonable. Therefore, after considering several methods of calculation for necessary absorption area, we believe that the size of field could reasonably be reduced to 96 Infiltrator units, e.g. six parallel trenches with 16 units in each trench. However, the soils are clayey, even in the surface layers, and appropriate co uction techniques for clay soils §boyuld be used and proper precaution taken. Precautions such asconstruction in wet weather, ramie/roughen infiltrative surfaces, avoundue compactio_n_, and similar careful construction practices. Also, th enches should be sited such that the size of the field could be approximately doubled if necessary in the future. If you have any questions, or need additional- information, please contact us. Sincerely, HIGH OUNTRY EN INEERING, INC. Ti th Y P. Beck P.E. Pr ect Manager TPB/soe cc: Janet, Eagle County Environmental Health (via fax to 328-0349) 923 Cooper Avenue 14 Inverness Drive East, Ste B-144 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Englewood, CO 80112 phone 970 945-8676 • fax 970 945-2555 phone 303 925-0544 • fax 303 925-0547 ISDS Permit #1±0_Y_Yq Date 7 S Da ISDS Final InaRection Completeness Form Tank isgal. Tank Material 4 wo. deAxfj_ V ��a_ Tank is located � ft; and degrees from T _ ' a-64" tpezuthent landmark)` — Tank is located ft. and degrees frog )permanent landmark) Tank set level. _LLTank lids within 8" of finished grade. V size of field a ft2 units lineal ft. Technology .iA YS cl a o) ut� is stall'��ed'� 'r.� ,between tank and house (+ 1/100ft) . Therei�•st" a "T" that goesy down 14 inches in the inlet and outlet of the tank: inlet.and outlet is sealed with tar -,tape, rubber gasket etc. T k;has-two,edmpartments with the 1;arger-..,cpmpartment closest to the .... house. V Measure; distance and relative direq-t. to :f,leld; .Depth of field. 3 ft . V Soil interface raked. . ( V Inspection portals at the.end of each trench.. IR V Proper distance to setbacks. �� {� W 2 i( to 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 lines �3S leach Other �f f,�� h j /L.0 I I oa Inspection meets requirements. Copy form to installer's file if recommendations for improvement were suggested. ACTION TAKEN: Setbacks Well Potable House Property Lake. Dry Tank Drain Water Lines line Stream Gulch Field 100 25 20 10 50 25 10 10 Tank 50 10 5 10 50 10 * 10 `'. �., I "JOB NAME 1904-99 Tax #2391-151-01-007 Lot #7, Homestead Acres MORRIS Grange Lane, Carbondale g� a JOB NO. �P. 12IJL� JOB LOCATION BILL TO DATE ZARTED DATE COMPLETED DATE BILLED FA M� MURIA-, IWA UNIZORAWA11 1 IMF] aI I C MOM MW W1,41,941 WE Na _ r /- IV. G ST SUMMARY l I ® • a�I TOTAL SELLING PRICE MATERIAL!: ME r••r �[•1:. .: is FNW-WIf. �_: L_ /. .• i� .► I i � U-0-4 "�� W, INSURANCE I rim, Mxal 1112 w�- ff mv% w) V��r r MAN-// / _ ��i INN A 11 WWI MY M-4 SALES TAX MISC. COSTS TOTAL OB COST GROSS PROFIT LESS OVERHEAD COSTS % OF SELLING PRICE NET PROFIT .0000) FM �E s 16 � -.I._ i �.s., wig jl��r % � y I a r° Poin ©x h �. 4A� G) Recycled Content 10% Post -Consumer w /sj�s 19oq-