Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout105 Castle Ln - 246701301006INDIVIDUAL 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. 2092-01 BP NO. 13765 OWNER: GARRETT REUSS PHONE: 970-704-0847 MAILING ADDRESS: 0167 DAKOTA MEADOWS, CARBONDALE, CO 81623 APPLICANT: SAME PHONE: SYSTEM LOCATION: 105 CASTLE DRIVE, BASALT, CO 81621 TAX PARCEL NO. 2467-013-01-006 LICENSED INSTALLER: LONE PINE EXCAVATING, DENNIS PHILLIPS LICENSE NO. 61-01 PHONE: 970-945-2851 DESIGN ENGINEER: HEPWORTH-PAWLACK GEOTECHNICAL, SOILS REPORT PHONE NO. 970-945-7988 INSTALLATION HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR A 4 BEDROOM RESIDENCE 1250 GALLON SEPTIC TANK, 1500 SQUARE FEET OF ABSORPTION AREA CREDIT, VIA 48 INFILTRATOR UNITS AS REQUESTED SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: INSTALL IN SERIAL DISTRIBUTION IN TRENCHES, WITH A CLEANOUT BETWEEN THE TANK AND THE HOUSE AND IN- SPECTION PORTALS IN EACH TRENCH. PLACE THE LEACH FIELD IN THE AREA ADJACENT TO OR UP -GRADE FROM THE PERC TEST PITS AND PRO- FILE HOLE. RAKE ALL TRENCH SURFACES TO PREVENT THE SMEARING OF SOILS AND DO NOT INSTALL IN WET WEATHER. BE SURE TO MAINTAIN ALL APPLICABLE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS. CALL EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 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 SEPTIG SY,S EM HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND APPROVED. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE: OCTOBER 16, 2001 CONDITIONS: 1. 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 5 0 0 SQUARE FEET (VIA 48 TNF TT.TR AT(�R 17NTT$ ) INSTALLED CONCRFrWgK: 15 0 0 GALLONS IS LOCATED 4 5 DEGREES AND 37 FEET INCHES FROM THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF THE HOUSE. COMMENTS: THE FINAL INSPECTION WAS DONE BY WILLIAM CARLSON OF EAGLE COUNTY ENV. HEALTH ON NOVEMBER 14, 2001. THE TANK FOR THIS SYSTEM IS LARGE ENOUGH FOR 5 BEDROOMS, BUT THE LEACH FIELP IS LY LARGE ENOUGH FOR 4 BEDROOMS. ANY ITEM NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS O CTED FORE FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM IS MADE. ARRANGE A RE -INSPECTION WHEN WORK IS COMPLETED. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVA DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 2001 Incomplete Applications Will NOT Be Accepted (Site Plan MUST be attached) ISDS Permit # 2_0 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 (El Jebel) * FEE SCHEDULE * PERMIT APPLICATION FEE $150.00 PERCOLATION TEST FSF $200.00 * SIZING AND SITE VISIT FEE SIM-00 (WHEN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SIZES THE * SYSTEM USING YOUR SOILS REPORT) * MARE ALL REMITTANCE PAYABLE TO: "EAGLE COUNTYTRBASURER" *t,rftf�►,t*,r*****Heart*#tt**,r***w*****#**�r******#*****w****rr************w*,�+r,r*,► PROPERTY OWNER: ��t'r,_ MAILING ADDRESS: 15167 Dk k167 Ar l�L,�4�0� � 1%TAi-�'l� PHONE: APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON: S#� —U4%ik1> �3bvAMs-Co%-�, A-,a,01tk-CCOtS PHONE: 0t6Pb- 74L4 f LICENSED SYSTEMS CONTRACTOR: PHONE: COMPANY/DBA: ADDRESS: PERMIT APPLICATION IS FOR: (X) NEW INSTALLATION ( ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR LOCATION OF PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM: Legal Description: l.ot d:i ! PP L c 't�S Tgrc� ► c� Tax Parcel Number: Lot Size: 3 .56 #4—. Physical. Address: tbG C-Kwt(.G BUILDING 'TYPE: (Check applicable category) V) Residential/Single Family ( } Residential/Multi-Family* ( ) Commercial/Industrial* Number Number Type _ of Bedrooms of Bedrooms *These systems require design by a Registered Professional Engineer TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (Check applicable category) 00 Well ( ) Spring ( ) Surface ( ) Public Name of Supplier: APPLICANT SIGNATURE: _ o�,� Date: 04b- o� l AMOUNT PAID : 3 J 0 — RECEIPT # : j ( ® q j DATE: d CHECK #: AJ CASHIER: sf iUPi 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 November 20, 2001 Garrett Reuss 0167 Dakota Meadows Carbondale, CO 81623 Raymond P. Merry, REHS Director RE: Final of ISDS Permit #2092-01 Tax Parcel #2467-013-01-006. Property location: 105 Castle Drive, Basalt, CO. Dear Mr. Reuss: 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, 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 Community Development Department (970) 328-8730 FAX (970) 328-7185 TDD (970) 328-8797 Email: eccmdeva@vail.net http: //www.eagle-county.com EAGLE COUNTY. COLORADO DATE: July 30, 2001 TO: Walters Company FROM: Environmental Health Division Eagle County Building P.O. Box 179 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 RE: Issuance of Individual Sewage Disposal System Permit #2092-01, Tax Parcel #2467-013-01-006. Property Location: 105 Castle Drive, Basalt, CO., Reuss residence. Enclosed is your ISDS Permit #2092-01. 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 contactEagle 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 $47.00 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 # 2092-01; ISDS Final Inspection Completeness Form Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945-7988 ' Fax:970-945-8454 hpgeo@hpgeotech.com SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RUESS RESIDENCE LOT 7, SEVEN CASTLES, CASTLE LANE EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 100 870 NOWMBER 9, 2000 PREPARED -FOR: DAVID JOHNSTON ARCHITECTS ATTN: JAMES HARRIS 758 MAIN STREET CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECBMCAL, INC. November 9, 2000 David Johnston Architects Attn: James Harris 758 Main Street Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Job No. 100 870 Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Ruess Residence, Lot 7, Seven Castles, Castle Lane, Eagle County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Harris: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed residence at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory pits excavated in the proposed building area consist of medium stiff to stiff, sandy silt and clay. Groundwater was not encountered in the pits at the time of excavation. The laboratory testing indicates the subsoils have a hydrocompression potential. The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 1,000 psf with some risk of settlement. Precautions should be taken to prevent wetting of the bearing soils. 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. David A. Yothg, P Rev. By: DEH DAY/rso TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ................................. 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .............. 1 SITE CONDITIONS ................. ............. ....... 2 FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................... 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............ ....................... 3 FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS ........................... 3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 4 FOUNDATIONS .......................................... 4 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ..................... 5 FLOOR SLABS ............................. ............ 6' UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ................................... 7 .SURFACE DRAINAGE ............................. .... 7 PERCOLATION TESTING ................................. 8 LIMITATIONS...... ........................................ 8 FIGURE 1- LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS 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 H - PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS CccPtech PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed Ruess residence to be located on Lot 7, Seven Castles Subdivision, Castle Drive, 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 proposal for geotechnical engineering services to David Johnston Architects dated October 23, 2000. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory pits was conducted to . obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification, compressibility or swelland 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. Percolation testing was also conducted in the proposed septic disposal site. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnicai engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The proposed residence will be a single story wood frame structure over a walkout basement level daylighting to the south. Ground floor will be slab -on -grade. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 3 to 8 feet. We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction. The on -site septic disposal system is planned to the south-southwest. of the residence. Ge Ptecth -2- If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report. SITE CONDITIONS The site is vacant and the grading appears mostly natural. There is cut/fill pad in the lower part of the lot below the proposed building site. The ground surface slopes moderately steep down to the south-southwest at grades from about 12 % to 20 %. Elevation difference across the proposed residence is about 15 feet. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds with'scattered sagebrush and pinon and juniper trees. There is a relatively large, steep sided drainage gully along the west and north of the building site that was dry at the time of our field work. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on October 26, 2000. Three exploratory pits were excavated at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. Pits 1 and 2 were in the area of the proposed residence and the third pit was a Profile Pit in the area of the proposed on -site septic system. The pits were dug with a rubber -tire backhoe. The pits were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Samples of the. subsoils were taken with relatively undisturbed and disturbed sampling methods. Depths at which the samples were taken are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Pits, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for. review by the project engineer and testing. Gc&* ech -3- SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. The subsoils in the proposed building area consist of about 1 foot of organic topsoil overlying medium stiff to stiff, sandy silt and clay with gravel and cobbles. The silt and clay extended to the depths dug of 9 and 14 feet at Pits 1 and 2. At the Profile Pit the silt and clay subsoils extended to about 4 feet depth underlain by medium dense,. silty clayey sand and gravel with cobbles to the pit depth of 9. feet. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the pits included natural moisture content and density and percent finer than sand size gradation analyses. Results of consolidation'testing performed on relatively undisturbed drive samples of the silt and clay soils, presented on Figs. 3 and 4, indicate low compressibility under conditions of light loading and natural moisture content. The samples show a low hydrocompression potential (settlement when wetted under a constant light surcharge). The samples also show moderate to high compressibility after wetting when loaded. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavation and the subsoils were slightly moist. FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS The subsoils at the site possess a low to moderate hydrocompressive potential. Lightly loaded spread footings bearing on these soils should be feasible for foundation support of the residence with some risk of settlement. The risk of settlement is primarily if the bearing soils become wetted. Precautions should be taken to prevent wetting of the bearing soils. Possible methods to mitigate the settlement potential include a relatively deep pile or pier foundation. system. If recommendations for a deep foundation system are desired, subsurface drilling would be required. Ge Pte�ch DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory pits and the - nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread footings bearing on the natural soils with some risk of settlement. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,000 psf. Based on experience, we expect initial settlements of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch. Some additional settlement could occur if the bearing soils become wetted. The magnitude of the additional settlement would depend on the depth of the hydrocompressive soils below the foundation and the extent of wetting. 2) ' The footings should have a minimum width of 18 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 42 inches below exterior grade is typically used in this area. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be heavily reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies, and better withstand the effects of some differential settlement, such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 14 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation and Retaining Walls section of this report. a �toch -5- 5) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to firm natural soils. The footing subgrade. should then be moistened and compacted. 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 50 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 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 :consist ing of the on -site soils. The wall backfill should not contain vegetation, topsoil or oversized rocks. 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 G- VoFtcch 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 300 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 the footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at least 95 % of the, maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. FLOOR SLABS The natural on -site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. There could be some slab settlement if the subgrade becomes wetted. 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 rocks. Mech -7- UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our experience in the area and where clayey soils are present that local perched groundwater may develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can also 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 lih feet deep. An impervious membrane such as 30 mil PVC should be placed beneath the drain gravel in a trough shape and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to prevent wetting of the bearing soils. SURFACE DRAINAGE ` Positive surface drainage is an important aspect of the project to prevent wetting of the soils below 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. . 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. G V<FA' ech 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 This may require a swale along the uphill side of the residence. - 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation, such as sod, should be located at least 10 feet from foundation walls. Consideration should be given to use of xeriscape to reduce the potential for wetting of soils below the foundation caused by irrigation. PERCOLATION TESTING Percolation tests were conducted on October 27, 2000 to evaluate the feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile pit and three percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Fig. 1. The test holes (nominal 12 inch diameter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The soils exposed in the percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown on Fig. 2 and consist of sandy silt and clay to about 4 feet depth underlain by silty clayey sand and gravel with cobbles. The percolation test results, presented in Table II, indicate avera a colation rates between 15 and 24 minutes per inch with an average over rate of 21 minutes per inch. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal system. LD41TATIONS This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no GetPtech warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pits excavated at the locations indicated on Fig. 1 and to the depths indicated on Fig. 2, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified 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, ' 0C . David A. Young, Pq l r Reviewed By: ®a.oaAIALS Daniel E. Har in, P.E. DAY/rso cc: Pattillo Associates - Attn: Jim Romeo . Ge Ptc�ct� LOT 4 APPROXIMATE SCALE . 1"=80, 102D 1020 - - 1010 1010 1 1000 .� PIT 1 - 1000 990 - - /- - \ PROPOSED n 98Q _ PIT 2 LOT 8 P.-30 --.--- 980 PROFILE p 20 PIT 970 - - - - _ P 1 -- - - 970 966 LOT 7 950 940 _ LOT BOUNDARIES CASTLE LANE - 960 950 LEGEND I♦ EXPLORATORY PIT. A PERCOLATION TEST HOLES 100 870 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 1 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES PIT 1 PIT 2 PROFILE PIT 3 ELEV. = 1000' El EV = 985' ELEV. 0 0 WC=4.2 SI DD=100 —200=65 F. ¢ 5 5 wc=5.6 DD=89 -200=72 Sr WC=4.2 ! DD=95 1 WC=6.7 • = DD=B9 aai 101 Q 10 15 15 LEGEND: TOPSOIL; organic sandy silt and clay, medium stiff.. slightly moist, dark brown. SILT AND CLAY (ML—CL); sandy, gravelly with subangular sandstone fragments to cobble size. medium stiff to stiff, slightly moist, red —brown, calcareous. ''. SAND AND GRAVEL (SM—GM); with cobbles. silty, clayey, medium dense, slightly moist. ;'•a' red —brown. rocks are primarily subangular sandstone fragments. 2" Diameter hand driven liner sample. _ Disturbed bulk sample. NOTES: 1. Exploratory pits were excavated on October 26, 2000 with a backhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of the exploratory pits were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided. Pit 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 ( % ) DD = Dry Density ( pcf ) —200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 100 870 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 2 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 0 B. 2 0 3 �N N N L d 0 4 U 5 6 100 B70 . HEPWORTH - PAWLAK SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 I GEOTECHNICAL, INC. r 00 0 0 z m 0 i U z J J a U_. w Z 2 'F'^; V! Wuj O } �UJ 0 V Lu O a <0 J H m J a LL. . a o Q m U) W 2 c6 ca ca co a CCH U U U c O Y '' i C C C y 0 co ca co CO m .n .n c r_ c c co ca cc ca cn W W- S F O a - Z wui O � U U F X Z � a J ui W 0 J J Lu w N w N LCi O W Q N a a Z ZF Z V7 O F a 0 s C7 W J a cr =0 Q Ln ac w - M co r Z C J s r F F o Cfl Ny N y a O O L9 CDV Z M. U a d Lo Co M Cfl Z LU O F a U O W J a •— N w a T HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE 11 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO.100 870 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 (MINANCH) P-1 46 15 refilled 8 6 1 /4 1314 24 6 114 4 112 1 3/4 4 112 3 1 1/2 3 2 1 4 112 3 1 /4 1 114 3 114 2 1/2 3/4 2 112 2 1/2 P-2 48 15 refilled 7 5 3/4 1 114 15 5 3/4 5 314 5 4 1 4 3 1 8 7 1 7 6 1 6 5 P-3 51 15 refilled 7 6 1 24 6 5 114 3/4 5 1/4 4 114 1 4 114 3 112 3/4 8 7 1 7 6 1/2 1/2 6 1/2 5 3/4 3/4 Note: Percolation holes were hand dug in bottom of shallow backhoe pits and soaked on October 26, 2000. Percolation tests conducted on October 27, 2000 by Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Average rates determined from last 2 readings of each test. ISDS PERMIT # PERCOLATION TEST EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEATLH .OWNER:. ,Qfe %(� �✓�S -PHSYSICAL ADDRESS: - LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SeJ2-:J Srf MAILING ADDRESS: TYPE OF DWELLING: Ze 5; «I NUMBER OF TEST HOLES PRE-SOAKED: YES NO TIME WATER DEPTH INCHES OF FALL SOIL RATE PROFILE ny mmmommomm mmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm-- mmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm- mmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm mmmmmmmmm mmommmmmm - TIME TO DROP LAST INCH: PERC RATE: MINIMUM LEACH FIELD SIZE: MINIMUM SEPTIC TANK SIZE: ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST DATE f a —I �,�J� .(", V, ISDS Permit # Z d YZ "(n I Date ISDS Final InaRection QWleteneas Form Tank is gal. Tank Material►"' Tank is located iLf t . and e-/tea degrees from�WC� L),Q!S­ 1pss.meet l.oa..z�c) _ Tank is located ft. and degrees from Ire i.mh.rk) Tank -set level. 1--10 Tank lids within 8" of finished grade. Size of fiel_4 ' t,a� units lineal ft. Technology ,__ a� te 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: o C - '°' Inlet. and outlet is sealed with tar• -,tape,. rub er gasket ,et)c . y Tatnk Yias twa _ocsmpartments with .; the.a�rgs~r-.qQpatment closest to the A.. house: Measure: distance and relative Ilepth of field. �a R 'Soil interface raked. Inspection portals at the _end of -each trench..^ ^��•� . yS Proper distance to setbacks. Chambers properly installed as per manufacturers specifications. (chambers latched, end plates properly installed, rocks 'removed from trenches, etc.) Type of pipene ! used for building sewer li, leach field Other/ Inspection meets reauirpanents. Copy form to installer's file if recommendations for improvement were suggested. J r� ACTION TAKEN :04pp 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 JOB 2 O g Z - (s EAGLE- EeWT-Y- LTx P.O. BOX 179 SHEET NO. OF EAGLE, CO 81631 CALCULATED BY.^� DATE S ©% PRODUC1204-1(Single Sheets) 265-1(Padded) U®hw., Groton, Mass. 01471. 7o Order PHONE TOLL FREE 1-800-225-6360 2092-01 Tax #2467-013-01-006 -- - JOB NAME_ Lot #7, Seven Castles REUSS✓ �t,,"1105 Castle Bye, Basalt L.U,yf, JOB NO. 6P-15��S ZC ,i B LOCATION f I IQ sS , , j U S C nTJc BILL TO DATE STARTED DATE COMPLETED DATE BILLED -4,rdhv -juZ—p S J 2Ot ri•`' �i L� c 3f0J to� VfG�- JOB COST SUMMARY `v `-6 ,1 TOTAL SELLING PRICE /I r/ lo U dt,", TOTAL MATERIAL TOTAL LABOR INSURANCE A k 6C SALES TAX t ( I • � %) � T MISC. COSTS � TOTAL JOB COST GROSS PROFIT LESS OVERHEAD COSTS % OF SELLING PRICE NET PROFIT JOB FOLDER Product 278 JOB FOLDER VQSr` Princes In U.S.A. 40�9�V��� � �OQ �t"�C: Q-,Q o u-LA -,jcO�uto- 43 J- ��IG si �� fl c�O-UM�9�010� c �„ O 7 d_ �Ts cQ(iUss O: p-s (.- Z 13 6 in Ti 6 9 w 3 ti -7 17ttL £96 (OL6) t 1717£'SZ6(OL6)` £Z968 00 `3ldaN082:Id0 6 WW 00 `NgdSV 133HIS NIVN 99L 8-9oZ mans Od S10311 HO�JVNOISN HO rci iAva - - t s [ z p Z W p Q � LLJ 1 Ea ca DL OL r �..J w wLd C3 LD t E 3 a 03nOD i l l e O ■ L7- - Mll Bw Lit 4i l.7 rr t ' f i`,� as '�r aa� - F � 'r � si. i - � F - - - • `� if 1 F�a� _ _ 1�y7_ _ _ q t1 LJ _. - - - - - -.- - - _ _ - � •y�!+w, d6 I GQ 17 !• Ir Fj � r i t f`_t7. - � _ �' l' - - - � - - ` - It ly F o f i J J, r Qj t r ra a' O v i7 1 t r f 1a L] C Y 1 J - W CU j o / rn I Ij r'F _Y % E f rr J t g OD-'_ /f � { a C7 W Ld r , CO '�- ` � f ` W _I � r ! o' j J f = o I l /. �\ �.. - _ f � ' f•" jr, l� r f� 0 %Jj 1 _ � Ir �_ _ r jjf �.: j t In - i' J _ f - % � i J � _ - - - j �r - - - / Dim t' /' `j�, JI CI i W OD IY O ~ J Y QW ZN - WQ !• �- OD f•J r �' _ � -. __ - �� li � fM4 / ; - - - ` r - •• _ t t 994 f . i No Day , Y �Q F f`a. w -4 E3 IY ,t�f�I r �p F ' r % q } - - - w tK 't 856 ` ID - 1 �( C3 1:co In Z r I f F ` i (7 '• `�Qf in, j I :-W OVj _ - oMa.- + i Q F F I jjj f i t i r - � 1 r v +. o t I f jt i re -Sam � r + 1X i � r co i 4-1 +,' 1 re -Sam � r + 1X i � r co i 4-1 +,' 1