HomeMy WebLinkAbout155 Spirng Park Ct - 239115201003INDIVIDUAL 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. 2202-02 BP NO. 14296
OWNER: LEON AND LYNN ENGEL PHONE:
MAILING ADDRESS: 1105 MOHAWK RD., WILMETTE, IL 60091
APPLICANT: JAY GOODRICH PHONE: 970-417-0266
SYSTEM LOCATION: 0155 SPRING PARK COURT, CARBONDALE, CO TAX PARCEL NO. 2391-152-01-003
LICENSED INSTALLER: SPIEGEL CONSTRUCTION, CHRIS SPIEGEL LICENSE NO. 65-02 PHONE: 970-5247148
DESIGN ENGINEER: HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, ROGER NEAL PHONE NO. 970-945-8676
INSTALLATION HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR A 7 BEDROOM RESIDENCE
,(-_olinirnvm
IDS `,yUL17&r5 sh,'xi7 04 de5i�y1
2500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK, 3150 SQUARE FEET OF ABSORPTION AREA CREDIT, VIA 102 INFILTRATOR UNITS AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: INSTALL AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN DATED 4/18/02, WITH A CLEANOUT BETWEEN THE TANK AND THE HOUSE, AND IN-
SPECTION PORTALS IN EACH TRENCH. CALL EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH FOR A SOIL PROFILE OBSERVATION PRIOR TO IN-
STALLING THE LEACH FIELD. BECAUSE OF THE LARGE DESIGN FLOW THE FOLLOWING SET BACK REQUIREMENTS FROM THE LEACH FIELD
tJln y
0.n
MUST BE MET: 98 FEET FROM'P ATER COURSE, AND 73 FEET FOR'P�'DRY GULCH. RAKE ALL TRENCH SURFACES TO PREVENT THE SMEAR-
ING OF SOILS AND DO NOT INSTALL IN WET WEATHER. CALL EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND THE DESIGN ENGINEER FOR
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 SYSTEM HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND APPROVED.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVALA,(,(" DATE: JUNE 19, 2002
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: 3255 SQUARE FEET (VIA 105 STANDARD INFILTRATOR UNITS )
INSTALLED CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK: 2500 GALLONS IS LOCATED 260 DEGREES AND 138 FEET INCHES
FROM THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CONCRETE SLAB.
COMMENTS: THE FINAL INSPECTIONS WERE DONE BY RICHARD RTGOLT OF FACT.F cnTTNTY FNVTRONMFNTAT
HEATH AND THE DESIGN ENGINEER ON SEPTEMBER 30. 2002, THE N TN R'S FTNAT CFRTTFTCATTnN AND
DIGITAL PHOTOS WERE RECEIVED ON NOVEMBER 13, 2002. THIS SYSTEM IS LARGE ENOUGH FORA 7 BEDROOP.
RESIDENCE.
ANY ITEM NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE CORRECTED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM IS MADE. ARRANGE A RE -INSPECTION WHEN WORK IS
COMPLETED. � ,y/�
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL IA /2,r jt-t l L DATE: NOVEMBER 13, 2002
JUN-7-2002 09:24A FROM:EAOLE COUN-Y ENV HER 9703288788 TO:93283901 P:1.4
Incomplete Applications Will NOT Be Accepted
(Site Plan MUST be attached)
ISDS Permit # U
Building Permit # is
APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM+! PERMIT
ENVIRONME14TAL HEALTH OFFICE - EAGLE COUNTY
P. O. BOX 179
EAGLE, CO 81631
Eagle (970)328-8755, Fax (970)328-0349, E1 Jebel (970)927-3823
*it,k*jtiriritit**�Ir*�kdtlkkicAcit�r�r�IrAr**9rlk�kit+b+k�r*k**Ilr�k�r**it�rk�k�h*9lritir***�1rie**�lr+k�frk�rdralr***F�tak�lr�r�ki►dr
* FEE SCHEDULE
* &PPLICATION FEE $350-00
* THIS FEE INCLUDES THE ISDS PERMIT, SITE EVALUATION (PERCOLATION TEST,
* SOIL PROFILE OBSERVAT:CON) 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.()0, PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT FEE $85.00
* MAKE ALL REMITTANCE. PAYABLE TO: "EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER"
�k**tit�klekit9kak�k�r�Ir*�71rtt**ic*7k�ktkk*'kitalrakak�kalc*Jeir�r�relr*ak*#�k�k��r�t�rie*�k7k**'k*�r51t�*ak*ir�frkir*ak�kitak9t*#rir
PROPERTY OWNER:
MAILING ADDRESS: `� M . A�W W�L� • - PHONE:
APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON: �� C_00D1O PHONE :ALj
LICENSED SYSTEMS CONTRACTOR: "" PHONE: 37�, v�'Ld7S
COMPANY/DBA: - DRESS: bQx 33 '� � j
PERMIT APPLICATION IS FOR: i ` NEW INSTALLATION ( ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR
LOCATION OF PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM:
Legal Description:z'p`-
Tax Parcel Number: t3q11r0(z0lUO3 _ Lot Size:
Physical Address: �J �� �/'`��T•
BUILDING TYPE: (Check applicable category)
Residential/Single Family Number of Bedrooms
( } Residential/Multi-Family* Number of Bedrooms
( ) Commercial/Industrial* Type
*These systems require de.�ign by a Registered Professional Engineer
TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (Check applicable category)
I) Well ( ) Spring ( ) Surface �C� ��'4Z�
( Public Name o Su ier:
APPLICANT SIGNATURE:
Date: G-','"I • a?�
AMOUNT PAID:
**************************************** *******
6 9-
RECEIPT # : DATE
CHECK #: 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
November 13, 2002
Raymond P. Merry, REHS
Director
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,
r
Janet Kohl I
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: June 19, 2002
TO: Spiegel Construction
Raymond P. Merry, REHS
Director
FROM: Environmental Health Division
RE: Issuance of Individual Sewage Disposal System Permit #2202-02. Tax Parcel
#2391-152-01-003. Property Location: 0155 Spring Park Court, Carbondale,
CO., Engel residence.
Enclosed is your ISDS Permit #2202-02. Please obtain 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, 551 Broadway, P.O. Box 179, Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179
October 1, 2002
Eagle County Environmental Health Department
Attn: Ray Merry
P. O. Box 179
Eagle, CO 81631
Re: Engel ISDS - Lot 4, Spring Park Meadows
HCE File Number 201.1696.59
Dear Ray:
On September 30, 2002, High Country Engineering (HCE) personnel inspected the
construction of the ISDS located at Lot 4, Spring Park Meadows in Eagle County, Colorado.
HCE's original design called for a 105-unit Infiltrator trench system with one 2500-gallon
septic tank. At the time of inspection, the contractor had constructed the trench system and
installed a 2500-gallon concrete septic tank and the required chamber units. No backfilling
had taken place. Field personnel observed that the effluent filter had not been installed and
advised the contractor on its necessity. Otherwise, the installation of the system was in
conformance with the intent of the design. If you have any questions or comments, please
feel free to contact me at (970) 945-8676.
Sincerely,
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
v
C�tech
May 21, 1999
Divide Creek Builders
Attn: Dean Filiss
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone:970-945-7988
Fax: 970-945-8454
hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
1531 County Road 342
Silt, Colorado 81652 Job No. 199 395
Subject: Percolation Test Results, Proposed Leach Field, Lot 4, Spring Park
Meadows, Eagle County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Filiss
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. The work was done in accordance with our agreement for
professional services to you dated May 13, 1999.
Two profile pits and three shallow backhoe pits were excavated on May 17, 1999 at the
locations :shown on Fig. 1. Percolation test holes were hand dug (about 1 foot deep by 1
foot in diameter) at the bottom of the shallow backhoe pits and soaked one day prior to
testing. _The -soils exposed in the percolation holes and profile pit consisted of about 2
feet of topsoil overlying sand and clay to the profile pit depths of 9 and 10 feet.
Groundwater was not encountered in the profile pits and the subsoils were slightly
moist.
Percolation tests were performed on May 18, 1999 by a representative of Hepworth-
Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The percolation test results are summarized in Table I. The
percolation tests indicate an infiltration rate between 17 and 30 minutes per inch with an
average of 26 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.
If you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECH AL, INC.
p13 REG11S
• • pt.1! ADq ' 1'�
Jordy Z. Ad o , Jr., P. ; r
is 29707
Rev. by:S _P, -o
JZA/ksm .: ��;•,,•.•��t`'
attachments F ,/.,..�/..�•'°�C�
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK CEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB CIO. 999 395
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
(MINJINCH)
P-1
66
15
water added
8 3/4
7
1 3/4
17
7
6
1
6
5 114
314
5 114
4 1/2
3/4
4 1/2
3 3/4
3/4
8
7
1
7
6
1
6
5114
3/4
P-2
58
15
8 3/4
7 1 /2
1 1 /4
i
30
7 1/2
6 3/4
3/4
6 3/4
6
314
6
5 1/2
1/2
5 112
5
1/2
5
4 112
1/2
4 112
4
112
4
3 112
1/2
P-3
57
15
8 1 /2
7 114
1 1 /4
i
30
7 1/4
6 3/4
1/2
6 3/4
6
314
6
51/2
1/2
5 1/2
5
112
5
4 1/2
112
4-1/2
4
1/2
4
3 1/2
1/2
NOTE: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on May 17, 1999. The percolation
tests were con hintad on May 18, 1999. The average percolation rates were based on the last two readings of the
test.
000*o Ptech
f--q
Hepworth-PaNi,lak 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 RESIDENCE
LOT 4, SPRING PARK MEADOWS
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 199 395-1
FEBRUARY 8, 2002
PREPARED FOR:
SCOTT S. TURNIPSEED
P.O. BOX 3388
EAGLE, COLORADO 81631
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECBMCAL, INC.
February 8, 2002
Scott S. Turnipseed
P.O. Box 3388
Eagle, Colorado 81631 Job No. 199 395-1
Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed
Residence, Lot 4, Spring Park Meadows, Eagle County, Colorado.
Dear Mr. Turnipseed:
As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed residence at the
subject site.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed
building area consist of about to 1 f/Ffeet of topsoil overlying relatively dense, . ,"i
agnieft up to boulder size in a sandy clay matrix to the maximum refusal depth of
7`1/2 feet. ' Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling.
The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural
granular subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. The
subgrade should be evaluated for settlement/heave potential at the time of construction.
The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and
presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during
design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation
of the geotechnical recommendations.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Jord Z. Ad son, Jr., E.
Re_ . by: LP
JZA/djg
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ............................... 1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ................................... 1
SITE CONDITIONS .......................................... 2
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL ..................................... 2
FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................... 3
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................... 3
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................. 4
FOUNDATIONS ........................................ 4
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ..................... 5
FLOOR SLABS ........................................ 6
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM .................................. 6
SITE GRADING ........................................ 7
SURFACE DRAINAGE ................................... 7
LIMITATIONS .............................................. 8
FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
H-P GEOTECH
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be
located on Lot 4, Spring Park Meadows, Eagle County, Colorado. The project site is
shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the
foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for
geotechnical engineering services to Scott S. Turnipseed dated January 16, 2002..
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. previously conducted a percolation test on the lot
and presented our findings in a letter dated May 21, 1999, Job No. 199 395.
A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to
obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils were obtained
during the field exploration and visually classified. The results of the field exploration
were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable
pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data
obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and
other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the 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. The attached garage and basement floors will be slab -on -
grade. There will be a second story of living space above the garage. Grading for the
structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 4 to 10 feet.
We assume relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of
construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those
described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in
this report.
H-P GEOTECH
-2-
SITE CONDITIONS
The site was vacant and covered with 1 to 2 feet of snow at the time of our field
exploration. The ground surface in the proposed building area is mostly relatively flat
with a slight slope down to the south-southeast. The eastern side of the building
roughly follows the top of a moderately steep slope down towards Spring Park
Reservoir. The average grade of the slope is about 25 %. Vegetation consists of
scruboak, brush, grass and weeds.
SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL
Bedrock of the Pennsylvanian age Eagle Valley Evaporite underlies the Spring
Park Meadows area. These rocks are a sequence of gypsiferous shale, fine-grained
sandstone/siltstone and limestone with some massive beds of gypsum. There is a
possibility that massive gypsum deposits associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite
underlie portions of the lot. Dissolution and deformation of the gypsum under certain
conditions can cause sinkholes to develop, produce areas of localized subsidence, and
cause differential fault creep. During previous work in the area, sinkholes have been
identified mainly in lower elevation areas of the Roaring Fork Valley. The basalt now,
colluvial and older alluvial deposits that make up the Spring Park Meadows area appear
relatively thick.
Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate area of the subject lot. No
evidence of cavities was encountered in the subsurface materials; however, the
exploratory borings were relatively shallow, for foundation design only. Based on our
present knowledge of the subsurface conditions at the site, it cannot be said for certain
that sinkholes will not develop. The risk of future ground subsidence on Lot 4
throughout the service life of the proposed residence, in our opinion, is low; however,
the owner should be made aware of the potential for sinkhole development and area
wide subsidence.
H-P GEOTECH
991E
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on January 17 and 18, 2002.
Three exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the
subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous
flight augers powered by a truck -mounted Longyear BK-51HD drill rig. The borings
were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with a 13/8 inch I.D. spoon sampler. The
sampler was driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 140 pound
hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test described
by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication of the
relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were taken
and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory Borings,
Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project
engineer.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 1/2 to 11/2 feet of rocky topsoil overlying relatively
dense, basalt fragments up to boulder size in a sandy clay matrix to the maximum
drilled depth of 71/2 feet. Drilling in the basalt rock with auger equipment was difficult
due to the size and hardness of the rock and drilling refusal was encountered in the
deposit. The subsoils are interlayered colluvial and basalt flows and could be variable
with depth. The soils encountered at the septic disposal area were mainly fine-grained
colluvium.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the
subsoils were slightly moist to moist.
H-P GEOTECH
-4-
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and
the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with
spread footings bearing on the natural granular soils.
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 4,000 psf. Based on
experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as
discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. The subgrade
should be evaluated for settlement/heave potential at the time of
construction.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous
walls and 2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided
with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost
protection. Placement of foundations at least 42 inches below exterior
grade is typically used in this area.
4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least
10 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.
5) The topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the
footing bearing level extended down to relatively dense natural granular
soils. Voids created by the removal of large rocks should be backfilled
with concrete or granular soils compacted to at least 100 % of standard
Proctor density near optimum moisture content.
H-P GEOTECH
-5-
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 granular 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 40 pcf for backfill
consisting of the on -site granular soils. The backfill should not contain vegetation,
topsoil or rock larger than about 6 inches.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate
hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction
materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions
behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall
or an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a
foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent
hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls.
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90 % of the
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backfill in
pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum
standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use
large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the
wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the
material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the
backfill.
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a
combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and
H-P GEOTECH
WE
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 0.45.
Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated
using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 400 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. 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 gravels devoid of vegetation, topsoil and rock larger than
about 6 inches.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our
experience in the area that local perched groundwater may develop during times of
heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a
H-P GEOTECH
-7-
perched condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such as retaining walls
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.
SITE GRADING
The risk of construction -induced slope instability at the site appears low
provided the building is located off of the steeper slope as planned and cut and fill
depths are limited. We assume the cut depths for the basement level will not exceed
one level, about 10 to 12 feet. Fills should be limited to about 8 to 10 feet deep,
especially at the eastern, downhill side of the residence where the slope steepens.
Embankment fills should be compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard
Proctor density near optimum moisture content. Prior to fill placement, the subgrade
should be carefully prepared by removing all vegetation and topsoil and compacting to
95 % standard Proctor density. The fill should be benched into the portions of the
hillside exceeding 20 % grade.
Permanent unretained cut and fill slopes should be graded at 2 horizontal to
1 vertical or flatter and protected against erosion by revegetation or other means. The
fills should not encroach the steep slope -below the residence. This office should review
site grading plans for the project prior to construction.
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
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.
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.
Free -draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the
on -site finer graded soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all backfill.
5) Surface runoff should not be concentrated and directed onto the steep
downslope without adequate erosion protection.
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 borings drilled 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 borings 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.
H-P GEOTECH
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design
purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our
information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field
services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our
recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately
interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications
to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on -site observation of
excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a
representative of the geotechnical engineer.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
Jordy Z. Adamson, r.,
Reviewed by:
29707j
s�QN "I" tip.
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
JZA/djg
C.
cc: Architectural Graphics - Attn: Dave Madow
H-P GEOTECH
APPROXIMATE SCALE:
TO PERCOLATION TEST AREA
FAR WEST END OF BUILDING
ENVELOPE (JOB NUMBER 199 395)
7668
i
/
7670
/
LOT 4
/
I
1
\
BORING 3
J
7666
PROPOSED
'
BUILDING
\ FOOTPRINT
I
7664 -
\
BORING 1
\
7662
\
\ \
BORING 2
1
/
7660 --
\
\
/
�
\ \
BUILDING
\ ENVELOPE
7658 \
NORTHERN'���/
7656 ` \
\
\
BOUNDARY
\
/'
7654
7652
7650
\
7648
\
\
7646
TO PARK
SPRING
RESERVOIR
199 395-1 1 GEOT,EORTH-P W C. I LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1 I
LEGEND:
MTOPSOIL; gravelly sandy clay, organic, firm, moist, dark brown.
GRAVEL (GC); clayey, sandy, with fragments of basalt up to boulder size, dense, slightly moist,
brown.
Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586.
39/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 39 blows of a 140 pound hammer falling 30 inches were
required to drive the SPT sampler 12 inches.
Practical drilling refusal. Where shown above bottom of log, indicates that multiple attempts were
made to advance the boring.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on January 17 and 18, 2002 with a 4—inch diameter continuous flight
power auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from building corners staked
in the field.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site plan provided
and checked by instrument level.
4. The exploratory boring locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied
by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries
between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling.
Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
199 395-1 1 HEPWORTH—PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LEGEND AND NOTES I Fig. 3
ISDs Pesmit # Z�z �Z Date e 3 oL
'�-�S Final Insneetioa
Clete es■ Form
Tank is - -CC gal. Tank Material
T=k is located 13� ft. and 26 degrees from =Ll ,mod
_ - tp.srMnt 1..a.adc!
Tank is located ft. and degrees f
�✓ Tank set level. /Tank, lids within 8" of finished grade.
X
Size of field s �f / units lineal ft-.
Technology
' r r
cleanout is installed in between tank and house(+ 1/2-ooft)_
There is a "T" that goes down 14 inches in the inlet and
/ outlet of the tank:
✓ Inlet.and outlet is sealed with tas--,tape,, rubber gasket etc.
✓ Tjak .1ms tvt:.ecmpartments with the..-layeger.,o a�etment closest to the
/ house.
Msre died aace and relative direotarA : to :.#.e:d+ s "p✓Lq ✓ny G-.
pth of field. 3 ft _ ,
Soil interface raked.7-Z-.
Inspection. portals at the -end of each trench..
7proper distance to setbacks.
—7—Chambers properly installed as per manufacturers specifications.
(chambers latched, end plates properly installed, rocks Itemoved from
/ trenches, etc.) ��
/ Type of pipe used for building sewer line L ' 3�, leach fiel 4 �
�Other
zazpectfon meets rjmiria a is .
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
Fied 100
25
20
10
5D
25 10
10
50
10
5
1D
50
10 *
10
-EAGLE- -MUNT E- ENV; HEALTH
P.O. BOX 179
EAGLE, CO 81631
.,as ZZoZ-oz
SHEET NO
CALCULATED BY _' l ' 00L- I
of
DATE (29dOz
CHECKED BY DATE
air i e Zrr• t If t ti
�+� tia ,��1-.�{g of S i� �. r• �
'4
�9 �, r . • war 14 rr
s v , t• i�, ai • i ,�'a . ��la ? `��' S " .tip,, ♦#6r�"
if a a•.�� ! �. � 1.-:
R `, ��� � �+..• tom, �. 1 �j[..�, _ ,.
#1��i Lyle '- y� r� / '�• }�•! .7' � y t � .
i ry,n
•� � � �� • "� ! LL ram' y ��
1
ti•tir.s ,y i
41
.M} �r �• �}� ism a { 'i•
IV
f � 4 ,r,.t�• t � e 1
'�,.i, ! � t�•, !/' � "'.s�r' J ;•' 1,j. ,fit;.,,,,'^ � •y,J, I ►� _
. .;t 1 t1 MtM � il. ��r�+ ' r j' I,At�:•-J,.•�,. J!\l� �ia �
• �y,l :. �.• ti, •.� . �� r .! 3 t' 1 ,�. ; � Zr •� .•t{.e.%'•! •,� r V "d ,� d J�r j r!
♦//•t � �� a. /2y �r� ' ,.•!r� fi `. %",'�j�.T�rr �A1 n �1y'%�' �r�. � ' '..±!'t
A. � % i �`yt � ! �` ^ 4 r� Alr:` '��� t.'l' Y yrT (^ •• � irk w ..
�t� A �• ' • ,•_. � •� , t`� � � 't t ` 4,i •t�r�2 " iA ,1 ',1•}� J �.�tl` � / `M �?..
�,A.,sy � � , a i� <. _� , . ° �' 4 i .; r•� I h�i /�1 , "� -) f ,` 1' �i ,+� p • 'wa• il"'i'
f ... J,F� 5�. �� •CT �. ,` y Y ��% f'�jt i r~I .t. hA•". «� 'Y�^S-^.J �.
to
• � ( ,3i M , .,r t � I�' 1 i A tit' ` 1
It -
I AAA,
.. �( � ',tf '.�' _ice R .. p' 1 . � t ...� • ...i 1
�,�i. r�'`'Y •v' ,1� "1 ;•iy .► its �' `����T�
A i A N y +.►�ir� • � .
✓ h ' F
ti
r
JAP
�� •' i°hge
If
�t�'';�,t ti+y: tom: 4%' �I � «;
..r•r.1,i,"r i ..�
`e eQ� ,�, �t�s fi
.,
.. - t' . .
• '_
yr,
�� ;' rr
t`
_
..
•,
,i�
L
+�"-
_ ' � - � v `',i L "�7 • �, 1. �` x • 1�..
�._ ,-. _ ., - •'� ;�- .. ;� � LrA � 1. � . ,
�` � ' �, �`+ ��, I1r f •` i...`�. '�_ .. .\.. t � f�tj a ` _r. T jr rr� sF1 �;=^ - .,
41
_lam .;, } ��+ ~ ' 1 4r. �r•�' - •i►.' � +ya
J►,•-.t• .'yam .r gyp. �, .: '1-�!. Jr
V ;
`i i r �1 r• •
� _ ��..� ' ' �...: ' : � '+ .••.. � �� ' �. a ,'`^. � � 1 �'��� 1.. i ,, ,
Al
.
) .' J
4 ► F•
�.•r, is r"•;����
10
'i �� � '� is • �. r,1;
,�, � `* 31 '!}� I f r • ��'., `+, , ���� - ` ,•ti r �_ fit} . ! s �� ��
t 11�•+ 1 r , �I`, � t � , � •1 •� p 5�.
Ir
ki
• .!• '�' � . - � �..-.. .,t's� yam! "
, R ^
..�;: � ` ::y,�.. ,,s , ., '�'� "fib b ' .� .��, , , . .i .. • _ `� ' � � _ " . ,
!' R
DWI
y
R
:�ffv•; i'• f�+ '
AL
wr
i� ..• ems, L '• } .: +.,r
r ''
2202-02 Tax #2391-152-01-003
JOB NAME- Lot #4, Spring Park Meadows ENGEL
0155 Spring Park Rd., Carbondale
JOB NO. P - jy°2qlL
LOCOTIAN
BILL TO
'
DATE S •
DATE COMPLETED
DATE BILLED
N,
W111"INHHE 10 UK
.•
A� .�� . .� y' I_��
.(�� ,�
LWO...
arc
51 W myp����
WWZ III
�.:� I 1 f
• l I/ (Il1 -
'r� .-11,��/
_
INI
i
I
� 0A l 2.L.
r • �
�1 1
�
j1i ,
i�..e
• •
i —
• I
,
TOTAL SELLING PRICE
_■
TOTAL MATERIAL
1— 11110 1 WAX
ME
MISC. COSTS
jj�ii
III! Im
�A—&L-4
—■
c, -J • _ CO
�■
•SS PROFIT
LESS •
. PRICE
FOLDER Product 278 JOB FOLDER Pdnled In USA.
20 0 ,o GRAPHIC SCALE
20 40
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 20 ft.
.s
I 1 N°�6
0.
jY 1 I IN TALL CLEANOIJTr
I ; E r
Y 100 L.F. (TYP.) � r ,
r` ( 2500-GALLON
r , /
SEPTIC TANK
(MIN.)
Nil
. \ � `•. °'� V � � r''� 5' !MIN,) l /' r' i ,, % ! .' /. � f .°t
BUILDING
/ ENVELOPEif
NO
___ _. CON TRUCT' DRAINAiGE SWALES TO
NSPECTION ` 4 i DIREST STORMWAT�.,R RUNOFF
'WELL (TYP.) S1 Q } AROU D TH� ASBORPTON FIEL�.
''`` "°.....✓'°'• m `' _ C�0 ' y 4__-_.\ M`` -• L...„V.v ....__........._ ..>^.'` e t a✓ ,( C I i r) i #
TP PROFIL� PIT
6' MIN, TYP.
1 /
# e f 1i fff r f l pl t
TEST PIT ` '
PP T (TIP.) f I `s ' / ✓� ` f/ / r I
S r�
„0 PVC E SEWER I -
`_. y
...____. �` ., �'F` (TYP.)
x r
M 1. J y 1 1 y t 66 .✓ ' J Y r I
ti. r / f l I . 1•
4 � `\ F %( .� J i iI � ,f .t•f /�+ %�` If �'' rf � r , f
r l aro
4"
SOLID PIPE O
RO�EGHENEb
COUF�tINC .
0
12" %\� O
1 \�\i\ 0
10VABLE CAP
DRILL 4 - 1/2"
AIR HOLES
- CUT HOLE IN
TOP OF
INFILTRATOR
UNIT FOR
INSTALLATION
OF INSPECTION
WELL PIPE
4 0 PERFORATED PIPE
36"
INSPECTION WELL DETAIL
N. T. S.
NATURAL BACKFILL
-12" MIN. COVER
1 36" MAX. COVER
NATURAL GROUND
-RENCH CROSS SECTION
N.T.S.
INFILTRATOR UNIT
TYP .
REMOVABLE
PVC CAP
FINISH GRADE
a .p QdOQO
4" COU
__EP BEND
4" SEWER
4"
PVC
"CLEAN OUT
ASSEMBLY
SEWER CLEAN OUT DETAIL.
N. T. S.
k
4. as
4
�4¢ 4
4d
:
$
s
$ £
'k
4 a
Y.
s °
Y
ao
¢
..�
'.
t
41w
�4
°
a
` e
MANITY MAP
SCALE: 1 "=2000'
1OTM
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:
7 BEDROOMS * 2 PERSONS/BEDROOM * 75 GALLONS/PERSON/DAY IS:
1050 GPD = AVERAGE DAILY FLOW.
DESIGN FLOW = 1.5 * AVERAGE = 1575 GPD (Q) L•'
***INCREASE BY 20% FOR USE OF GARBAGE GRINDER, Q= 1890 GPD***
SEPTIC TANK:
MINIMUM TOTAL TANK SIZE:
je,1 Q * 1 DAY/24 HRS * 30 HRS = 2363 GPD
INSTALL ONE 2500-GALLON CONCRETE TANK WITH BAFFLE l�
***INSTALL EFFLUENT FILTER IN SEPTIC TANK OUTLET*L*4
STANDARD ABSORPTION AREA:
A = DESIGN FLOW APPLICATION RATE BASED ON PERCOLATION
APPLICATION RATE TEST RESULTS OF 17, 30 AND 30 MP1
1890 GPD = 3150 SF V
0.60 GPD SF
USE OF STANDARD INFILTRATOR UNITS IN TRENCH CONFIGURATION:
,50% REDUCTION- (3150 S.F.*0.50) ® 15.5 S.F./UNIT,
102 UNITS REQUIRED. INSTALL 7 ROWS AT 15 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 #199 395, DATED MAY 21, 1999. PERC RATES = 17, 30 AND 30 MPI.
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 TYP!CAL 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 SITE OBSERVATION. NO SURVEY WAS PERFORMED,
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 INDICATI
2' TOPSOIL OVERLYING SAND AND CLAY TO A PROFILE DEPTH OF
m ° N
1. ABSORPTION LATERALS SHALL NOT EXCEED 100 FEET IN LENG
2. THE BOTTOM OF EACH ABSORPTION TRENCH SHALL BE LEVEL. °°
3. DRAINAGE SWALES ARE TO BE PROVIDED ABOVE AND AROUND TRENCHEES...�"
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
8. 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"o PVC OR
MANUFACTURER'S PREFABRICATED BENDS.
N
O
O
W
CD
Z
W
0-)
W
W
0'
Y
Q
L
-j
U
co
o
Z
H
V
Q
ZLu
N
W
go
W
W
ov W
836 L
Z
WB�)
Z
� _�0
0
Z
W
9
rW LL
Z
70
0)
0
La
o
Z L to
�u wU9
U
Co
Woq0
=
g
m
st
2
W
f-
Q
Q
W
Q
Q
W
CO0o
0�
OU
Q
CL
C0 �he
<
�o
J
a�
ow
J
a
Z
WCL
� C17
LW
W
a
C� O
Z
PROJECT NO.
2011696.59
SHEET 1