Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.eh.264326303001 (1998) (Main House);pen/Pitkin Environmental Health Del ment Permit for an Individual Sewage Disposal System 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 970-920-5070 / FAX 970-920-5197 Permit # e? 1,?o / F Parcel ID # -3 - (c _G 3 —GD Type of permit /VCS Name of Owner P -l -,A; -F/ e GcL Street Address -22_Slp 3 Property legal description Lc-;%�--r� Z —�� �L'oo4% SLrL �« �Sio� o Size of lot 5- f D7 ctcllke s Total square footage of the house �Gl� Water source z ��i # of bedrooms in house # of offices, lofts & similar sized rooms in house lU Caretaker unit /U/f"t Total square footage of the caretaker unit k114 # of bedrooms in caretaker unit aZ4 # of offices, lofts & similar sized rooms in caretaker unit Designed for what # bedrooms FoGir- _ Permit information Designed by 1, p, C-4, �.rrGfii Mailing Address q 2-5 SSGZ/ k Perc rate Profile hole depth Depth to groundwater or bedrock Septic tank capacity ! -7 j D Absorption area / 2-.1-3 Z L. i /r%�s G %✓�1i�.r �aC Gt cTc�i Comments 1, f� 3,/�E'�'G %5� GI"Ve L Z L�Jer cyoc _ ,�, e� iti' 7;" .S/ S(i��11 h e fey Yr�� iiv e Lv GC%/icyL' o� %h e CL �iel� To Gov �i�'iy, e n : /' Gi G2 Sem 6 17)z e SO -F777 cle5- jiv /,W., s% AA) s To %� d�s�,,v 412/'L--�=�e��tz� %%yL' Permit approved by 2' Date: 2Z-2,12 Plans and specifications of the proposed individual sewage disposal system have been reviewed and are considered satisfactory. Permission is hereby granted to the owner or the agent to perform the work indicated in accordance with the Pitkin County ISDS Regulation in effect at the time of issue. This permit becomes invalid 6 months from the date that the permit was issued unless system construction has commenced or an extension has been approved in writing by the Department. As -built drawings must be included with this permit before the final approval will be issued. Installer: Final inspection approval: Date: f m/Pitkin Environmental Health Depa, .,ent Permit for an Individual Sewage Disposal System 130 S. Galena St. Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone 970-920-5070 / FAX 970-920-5197 Permit # e?go1 V Parcel ID # 2 L, 4,r "3 - 6, Type of permit /Lem Name of Owner P,-&11% Street Address j ,15/I fZ4 re <<' % 2 - Property legal description L4,7- 0- 2-51 i ��o�v� S zz,4 WI '1SioA) d 2_1u10 Size of lot 5,16) 51 crc to -Y Total square footage of the house 2L�lL Water source # of bedrooms in house_ # of offices, lofts & similar sized rooms in house C7 Caretaker unit N/�2 Total square footage of the caretaker unit klx/ # of bedrooms in caretaker unit_ # of offices, lofts & similar sized rooms in caretaker unit h% Designed for what # bedrooms Permit information Designed by ap, ' eY CSrU Z/Mailing Address Zr 7 '�b' Perc rate 2-c� Profile hole depth g' Depth to groundwater or bedrock Septic tank capacity 1-75-0 Absorption area / 2,,5- Z 1�7_ IW :_J7-7 i.J�s G'%Y�13ur /rG'al Gr �TioilJ Comments z' -F 3e19, I, fi 3rd PerG 7-�--5J hole � Z z-des-� lee- e -Xe' 7 - C u sem 6 zj Di e e,,t)- Av Gli1 Z� e SG cf^�727�i"a "Jh e 7�a�J/G 51�o�z�ili %iy %%7e ��liGRj�oJv cvIV��"�'" �) l4N �'��GGt �i'+%� -�r G j �- l S Q�.✓/ �'v e `� iiv 77�� 5 cz�� si �j� ,.t) 7)r e r-56 5 m a -Si- / e 60" /%ice 1-111�,11 c%�yv G s 'Y/P—e t` b 1j /7h:s yz v%y 7p- Permit 0 Permit approved by Date: ` ttt � PA -c_ t cel z 3, 11 `) °t'. *� k l Plans and spec fii cations of the proposed indivi al wage dispos system ystem have been reviewed and ar'e co°nsirere satisfactory. Permission is hereby granted to the owner or the agent to perform the work indicated in accordance with the Pitkin / County ISDS Regulation in effect at the time of issue. This permit becomes invalid 6 months from the date that the permit was issued unless system construction has commenced or an extension has been approved in writing by the Department. As -built drawings must be included with this permit before the final approval will be issued. Installer: Final inspection approval: �c- (/ Date: o -713 i - � ASPEN/ KIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH - ZPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM 130 S. Galena St., Aspen Colorado 81611 Phone 970-920-5070/Fax 970-920-5039 Name of OWNER 7t)N A Li L,) -j1 f IELi> Owner's Mailing Address 1 00-A ��a A!� PEtj (0- e j (Q Iz Business Phone: 4'11^, . 101Home Phone: ��, �2 Primary Contact Person (all communication regarding this permit will go through this person) Name Company Contact Mailing Address Business Phone A?,53iq4-Cell Phone Parcel ID # (available from assessor's office at 920-5160 or at www.aspen.com/assessorn Street address of property Legal Description: Lot ')Z Block Size of lot: F?, lo acres Fax : ,Filing Subdivision Type of proposed structure: �j. Size of bldg. envelope: Total square feet of house •03 # of bedrooms in house # of offices, lofts & similar sized rooms in house C7 Caretaker Unit: Attached ( ) Detached ( # of bedrooms in caretaker unit -'7 Total area(sq. ft.) of caretaker unit 0 # of offices, lofts and similar size rooms of caretaker unit Permit is for: New Home (x) Repair due to failure ( ) Remodel/Addition ( ) Emergency use ( ) Water: Private well ( ) Spring ( ) Stream ( ) Community/Public Water System (X) If community system: Name of system *u&,a Mp The fee for a ISDS application is $330 for a permit that takes 6 hours or less for the department to approve. If approval takes longer than 6 hours, a rate of $55 per hour will be charged. The maximum fee is $1000. The basic fee of $330 is due at the time of application. The remainder, if any will be due in two stages: first, at the time of issuance of the ISDS permit; second, before final approval of the ISDS permit. Application for an individual sewage disposal system is hereby submitted. I hereby certify that the above information is true and accurate and that I have provided true and accurate information on locations of all existing and proposed wells, contour intervals, buildings, property lines, ditches, slopes, waterlines, springs, suction or irrigation lines, drinking water cisterns, drain tiles, irrigation ditches, lakes, water courses, streams, floodplains, dry gulches, and existing septic systems. I hereby certify that any such features not shown on attached site map are not present. Issuance of the permit does not imply the approval of any other permit required for construction pursuant to Pitkin County codes. No construction may be undertaken until all approvals and permits have been obtained. The Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department, Pitkin County and employees of these agencies will be held harmless should the individual sewage disposal system fail or malfunction. The permit to construct is issued on information submitted by the applicant or his/her representatives. The owner assumes full responsibility in case of failure of the system. Signature of applicant Date 2, ' 94� 17�i Lee Cassin, 10:39 AM 3/24/98. .e: Garfield ISDS X -Sender: leec@comdev.ci.aspen.co.us Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 10:39:54 -0700 To: Nancy MacKenzie <nancym@ci.aspen.co.us> From: Lee Cassin <leec@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Re: Garfield ISDS Cc: betseyk@ci.aspen.co.us, maryw@ci.aspen.co.us, tomd@ci.aspen.co.us, leec@ci.aspen.co.us Nancy, I think so. I agree with what you're planning to require them to do, especially the other perc hole and especially the profile hole if there might have been water in the 3rd hole. I assume we don't have any maps of nearby parcels that would give us a clue about ditch locations? Just to feel a little better. Is there some back up room on the lot? I'm cc:ing everyone else so we can discuss if others wouldnt have made the same decision... thanks lee At 11:56 AM 3/20/98 -0700, you wrote: >1 have a septic application packet from David Panico for the Garfield septic >on a vacant lot in lower Starwood. It is engineer designed and the soil data >done by HP, May 20, 1996. 1 did a site visit last week. >The profile hole was only 6 foot deep. I called HP and they didn't know why >it was only 6 ft deep, maybe due to constraints of the equipment. Within 50 >feet of this they had soil boring data that went 10 feet deep and there was >no problem and the soil strata was consistent with the perc tests. So I >think that is close enough. >The other issue is that there is data from only 2 perc tests holes. The >third filled with water from a ditch? HP and the engineer used the slowest >of the two perc rates and feel this accurately represents the soil. >So we could require that they do an 8 ft profile hole and a third perc test >during high ground water. Also ,there are other areas on this lot that would >be suitable if the field had to be expanded. >There was four feet of snow on this parcel last week, so I don't know about >ditches. Talked to the neighbor and he wasn't familar with there being any >ditches. >So would this be suitable for the sign off waiver so he can submitted his >plans to building before issuing the septic permit. This is what David wants >to be able to do. >Nancy MacKenzie >920-5076 Printed for Nancy MacKenzie <nancym@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 I Tom Dunlop, 10:21 AM Garfield ISDS X -Sender: tomd@comdev.ci.aspen.co.us Date: Mon, 23 Mar 1998 10:21:38 -0700 To: Nancy MacKenzie <nancym@ci.aspen.co.us> From: Tom Dunlop <tomd@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Re: Garfield ISDS Nancy, If you feel this is an application that can proceed into the building permit process, with the waiver being signed by the owner, I agree with you. Thanks, tsd At 11:56 AM 3/20/98 -0700, you wrote: >1 have a septic application packet from David Panico for the Garfield septic >on a vacant lot in lower Starwood. It is engineer designed and the soil data >done by HP, May 20, 1996. 1 did a site visit last week. >The profile hole was only 6 foot deep. I called HP and they didn't know why >it was only 6 ft deep, maybe due to constraints of the equipment. Within 50 >feet of this they had soil boring data that went 10 feet deep and there was >no problem and the soil strata was consistent with the perc tests. So I >think that is close enough. >The other issue is that there is data from only 2 perc tests holes. The >third filled with water from a ditch ? HP and the engineer used the slowest >of the two perc rates and feel this accurately represents the soil. >So we could require that they do an 8 ft profile hole and a third perc test >during high ground water. Also ,there are other areas on this lot that would >be suitable if the field had to be expanded. >There was four feet of snow on this parcel last week, so I don't know about >ditches. Talked to the neighbor and he wasn't familar with there being any >ditches. >So would this be suitable for the sign off waiver so he can submitted his >plans to building before issuing the septic permit. This is what David wants >to be able to do. >Nancy MacKenzie >920-5076 Tom Dunlop Environmental Health 920-5073 Printed for Nancy MacKenzie <nancym@ci.aspen.co.us> 1 No Reci lent, No Subject To: leec,tomd From: Nancy MacKenzie <nancym@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Garfield ISDS Cc: Bcc: X -Attachments: I have a septic application pact from David Panico for the Garfield septic on a vacant lot in lower Starwood. It is engineer designed and the soil data done by HP, May 20, 1996. 1 did a site visit last week. The profile hole was only 6 foot deep. I called HP and they didn't know why it was only 6 ft deep, maybe due to constraints of the equipment. Within 50 feet of this they had soil boring data that went 10 feet deep and there was no problem and the soil strata was consistent with the perc tests. So I think that is close enough. The other glitz is that there is data from only 2 perc tests holes. The third filled with water from a ditch ? HP and the engineer used the slowest of the two perc rates and feel this accurately represents the soil. So we could still require that they do an 8 ft profile hole and a third perc test during high ground water. There are other areas on this lot that would be suitable if the field had to be expanded. There was four feet of snow on this parcel last week, so I don't know about ditches. Talked to the neighbor and he wasn't familar with there being any ditches. So would this be suitable for the sign off waiver so he can submitted his plans to building before issuing the septic permit. Printed for Nancy MacKenzie <nancymC�ci.aspen.co.us> 1 03 ASPEN • PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM FAST TRACK WAIVER (printed owners name) accept the responsibility for obtaining all soil information and other requirements of the. Environmental Health Department that are necessary to obtain an Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) permit, and know that a building permit will not be issued until the ISDS permit has been issued. I recognize that I am submitting my application for a building permit without completing the necessary field work to obtain a permit to construct an ISDS. I realize that I may incur additional expense in the form of building permit review fees if changes to my original plan are necessary. I recognize that, by entering the building permit application process in this fashion, that I am taking a risk that might ultimately mean I cannot build on the property in question, the dwelling might be smaller than originally designed, and that I might have to resubmit an entirely new set of plans. I further accept the fact that by having to resubmit plans it may cause extended delays to issuance of the permit to construct. This waiver will not apply if the project has had a previous condition of approval by the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) stating that an ISDS permit must be obtained prior to submitting plans to the Building Department. If the applicant wants to apply or " ast Track Wai er" anyway, the applicant must have the BOCC change the con tion of n oval vre-, slv-..g zautad __ WE �� �• --NIA F) OWNER DESIGNATED i REPRESENTATIVE: DATE: a water. isdswai 1. doc PAOU r( � 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611-1975 PHONE 970.920.5070 - FAx 970.920.5197 Pnnted on Recycled Paper CHURCH & Associates, Inc. ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS December 30 199 Ron and Lily Garfield c/o Design by David Panico 1533 Juniper Hill Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 Subject: OWS Installation Observation Proposed Residence Lot R-82, Starwood Pitkin County, Colorado Job No. 9340 Dear Mr. Panico, As requested, we observed the installation the Onsite Wastewater System (OWS) at the subject site. The OWS was designed in our report dated March 6, 1998 under Job No. 9340. The OWS was installed for a four-bedroom single-family residence with 5000 square feet of living area. The installed OWS includes a 2000 -gallon two-compartment pre -cast concrete septic tank with an eluent filter on the outlet and six 3 feet by 87.5 feet gravelless chamber trenches. An As -Built Drawing is presented as Figure 1. The OWS was installed in conformance to the plans and specifications presented in our design except for minor changes in locations of OWS components. If there are any questions, please call. CHURCH & Associates n_ Edward O. Church, P.: EOC/cbs 3 copies sent tiG,; o ;0 13172 T ONA1. cc: Stutzman-Gerbaz, Attention: Jeff Gerbaz cc: K.C. Smith Builder, Inc., 6801 East Sopris Creek Road, Snowmass, CO 81654 cc: APEHD, Attention: Nancy MacKenzie DENVER 4501 Wadsworth Boulevard Wheat Ridge, CO 80033 303.463.9317 Fax: 303.463.9321 CASTLE ROCK 303.660.4358 EVERGREEN 303.816.1455 ,LOT 0-821), ST.ARW(l PITKIN\COUNTY� C SIX CHAMBER TRENCHES EACH TRENCH - 3' X 87.5' JOB NO. 9340 ADQ 2000 GALLOWTWO",', COMPARTMEN *� PRE -CAST 'C.ONC%kE TE S EPtjC TAN EFFLUENT FILTMON 'THE tl.UTLE H FLOW ER AS -BUILT DRAWING 0 FIN SCALE, l'-,=_ 20`�- FIGURE 1 07/27/98 17:27 FAX 1 970 927 4635 KC SMITH BUILDER © 0 002 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Spnxtgs, Co 61601 July 23 , 1998 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7966 f' K.C_ Smith Builder, Inc. Attn: Ken Smith 6801 East Sopris Creek Road Snowmass, Colorado 81654 Job No_ 196 ?27-1 Subject: Percolation Testing, Lot R82, Starwood, Pitkin County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Smith: As requested by you, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical Inc., performed percolation testing at the subject site. We previously performed percolation testing at the site under Job No. 196 227 and reported the results in letters dated May 20, 1996 and May 28, 1996. Percolation test hole P1 was excavated and pre-soaked on July 16. Percolation test hole P-2 was excavated and pre-soaked on July 20, 1998_ Percolation testing was performed in each hole the day following the pre-soak. The tests were conducted at the northeast corner (P-1) and near the southeast corner (P-2) of the existing septic system. The test results are presented on Table I_ If you have any questions or require further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL.., INC_ � e Louis E. Elle�00'1"111111i" r Rev. by: V111 �% LEE/roff �._S10 NAl attachments 07/27/98 17:27 FAX 1 970 927 4635 KC SMITH BUILDER HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE I Z003 PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 196 227-1 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.JINCH) P.1 12" Below Bottom of Infiltrator 15 water added 7 A 5 'h 2 23 41/, 1 1A 4% 3 1'/< 7 ,h 6 '/3 1 6 'h 5 'h 1 4 3/• '/e 43/. 4 'A '/2 41/. 3 '/: P-2 is" Below Bottom of Infiltrator 15 water added 10 %a 8 '/< 2 20 8 K 7 1 /a 7 51/1 1 5 3K 5 5 4 1 9 '/4 8 3/. 1 8 3/. 8 8 7 %, �/ EOC est E.O. CHURCH, INC. ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS March 6, 1998 Ron and Lily Garfield c/o Design by David Panico 1533 Juniper Hill Road Aspen, Colorado 81611 Subject: OWS Design, Proposed Garfield Residence Lot R-82, Starwood Pitkin County, Colorado Job No. 9340 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Garfield, As requested, we prepared an Onsite Wastewater System (OWS) design for the proposed residence. Subsurface conditions were investigated by the Hepworth-Pawlak (HP). The HP reports were prepared under Job No. 196 227, dated May 20 and 28, 1996. SITE CONDITIONS - A four bedroom residence is proposed. The residence is proposed in a rural mountain area where OWS are required. The site has an approximate 30% slope to the southwest. There is a moderate cover of grasses and a sparse cover of trees and shrubs. There is an irrigation ditch on property above the subject lot. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION - A 5000 square foot (SF) four bedroom residence is proposed. The sewage load for a 5000 SF four bedroom residence is 800 gallons per day (GPD), 1400 with a 1.75 peaking factor, using 100 GPD per person. This loading includes a garbage grinder, dish washer, and washing machine. The site will be served water by public water. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS - The subsurface investigation was performed by HP. Please refer to the attached HP reports for details. Subsurface conditions were investigated by a drilling one profile hole and three percolation holes and excavating one profile pit and three percolation holes. Subsurface conditions consist of 0.5 to 1.5 layer of sandy, clay topsoil., underlain by sand and gravel to 6 and 10 feet, the maximum depth explored in the profile pit and boring, respectively. No ground water or bedrock was encountered. Percolation test near the profile boring indicate results of 240 minutes per inch (MPI) and 8 to 20 MPI near the profile pit. The average percolation rate near the profile boring is 240 MPI and near the profile pit is 14 MPI. At the time of percolation testing both for the profile boring and profile pit water from the irrigation ditch was flooding some surface areas. The proposed field area will not cover three percolation test results due to the third percolation hole having water in it during the time of testing. We have prepared the design based on the two percolation test performed near the profile pit. We believe the percolation rates accurately depict subsurface conditions. We believe the foundation drain of the proposed residence will act as a collection system and 925 East 17th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80218-1407 P.O. Box 2869 • Evergreen, Colorado 80437-2869 (303) 832-9692 FAX (303) 832-3517 (303) 674-0660 FAX (303) 674-0813 a 2 divert the water from the irrigation ditch to the northeast before it reaches the OWS. If the Pitkin County Health Department requires more percolation test be performed, we recommend the OWS consider the addi- tional information. RECOMMENDATIONS - We recommend a septic tank and chamber trench OWS be`as installed at the location presented on Fig. 2. The OWS design is based on a sewage load of 800 GPD and a percolation rate of 20 MPI. A 1750 gallon two compartment precast concrete septic tank with an effluentjh,"� 04 filter on the outlet is recommended. A distribution box with flow equalizers should be installed to distribute flow to the trenches. We recommend the installation of six 3 feet by 87.5 feet chamber trenches be installed at the location indicated on Fig. 2. Each trench would have 14 chambers. The OWS should be constructed similar to the details presented on Figs. 2 through 4. The construction of the residence and appurtenant foundation drains will collect and divert surface water from portions of the field area. The northern portions of the trenches may require additional surface swales to collect and diverter surface water away from the trenches. The outlets for foundation drains must discharge a minimum of 10 laterally from any effluent trench. The proposed OWS is suitable to serve a four bedroom residence with between 2000 and 6000 SF of living area. If additional bedrooms are anticipated, we believe the installation of a larger OWS at the time of original construction to accommodate any "build -out" size of the residence is cost effective. The septic tank would have to be in- creased by 438 gallons of capacity for each additional bedroom. Each additional bedroom will require 313 SF of trench, 21 chambers. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE - The owner must realize an OWS is different from a public sewer system. The owner must be aware of and assume responsibility for maintenance of the system. We recommend the septic tank be pumped and effluent filter be cleaned ( hosed off) at every two years. There are daily considerations such as not putting plastic or other nonbi.odegradable materials down the septic system. Water use must be monitored so toilets are not allowed to run when seals mal- function. To illustrate the point, it should be noted a running toilet will consume in excess of 1000 GPD if allowed to run. As the system is designed for 800 GPD, an excess 1000 gallon loading will flood and irreparably harm the system. LIMITATIONS - Our layout, design and recommendations are based on data submitted. If subsurface conditions different from those described in this report are encountered, we should be called to observe the sub- surface conditions. If proposed construction is changed, we should be notified to evaluate the effect of the changes on the proposed system. All construction is to be in accordance with the Pitkin County ISDS regulations. Pipe type and size, burial requirements, septic tank construction, and other specifications, which are not depicted in our report, are to conform to the requirements of the ISDS regulations. The installer of the system is to be approved by the Pitkin County Health Department, and is to have demonstrated a knowledge of the ISDS regulations and requirements. 3 The OWS design includes one installation observation. Additional observations ate not included in the cost of this design. If there are any questions or if we can be of further service, please call. E. 0. CHURCH, INC, h Edward O. Church, P.E. O EOC cbs 1pNALE 3 copies sent 2 ACRES APPROX OT R-82. STARWOOD PITKIN COUNTY. COLORADO SCALE 1"=too' IZ NOTE: SITE PLAN PROVIDED BY SCHUMESER. MEYER. AND GORDON SITE PLAN AND LOCATION OF PROFILE PIT. PRORLE HOLE. AND PERCOLATION HOLES JOB NO. 9340 FIG. I 6 - 3' X 87.5' CHAMBERED TRENCHES WITH 14 CHAMBE PER TREND+ 84 TOTAL Z;HAMBERS �3'S �s ��z az/ -V Cs� \ MAY NEED TO LOCATE TRENCH WITHIN ENVELOPE 3-6" Jumper Trees --�� JOB NO. 9340 DISTRIBUTION BOX J WITH FLOW EOULIZERS `r 5.2 ACRES APPROX. LOT R-82. STARWOOD SCALE PITKIN COMITY. COLORADO .. = 1� VI' TELEPHONE 8 TV RISERS m i x -- EL EC TRIC MANHOL E EL !34 \ El 134 12" CMP E-1. 132 EI 13� PROPOSED 1750 GALLON TWO COMPARTMENT PRECAST �M�TAW WITH x �- I __ LO ATION OF PROPOSED OWS� 4 OF PA VEMENT q V t 757 � IN 13, �Z FIG. 2 TYPICAL PLAN VIEW GRAVELLESS CHAMBERS 3' OR 4" PVC ---� " OBSERVATION/VENT PIPE TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION NATURAL GRADE 3' SEE BELOW SPECIFICATIONS DESIGN CRITERIA STRUCTURE - 14 BEDROOM RESIDENCE. 5000 SF LOADING - 100 GPD PER BEDROOM TOTAL LOADING - 0 - 800 GPD PERCOLATION RATE - T - 20 MPI AREA - (1.75 X O X-JT)/5 TOTAL AREA 1 1252 SF EFFLUENT INLET FROM DISTRIBUTION BOX 3" OR 4" PVC OBSERVATION/VENT PIPE II SLOPE FOR II f1RANAGF F-- 1.5' o k- --GRAVELESS CHAMBERS 6' MIN. TRENCH SPECIFICATIONS LENGTH - 87.5 FT WIDTH - 3 FT NUMBER OF TRENCHES - 6 TOTAL PROPOSED AREA - 1302 SF NUMBER OF CHAMBERS PER TRENCH = 14 TOTAL NUMBER OF CHAMBERS - 84 TREAMENT UNIT SPECIFICATIONS TOTAL CAPACITY - 1.75 X 0 X (30 HOURS/24 HOURS) - 1750 GALLONS RECOMMEDATION - 1750 GALLON TWO COMPARTMENT PRECAST CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK WITH EFFLUENT FILTER ON THE OUTLET TRENCH DETAILS JOB NO. 9340 FIG. 3 1750 JALLON TWO COMPARTMENT PRECAST CONCRETE SEPTIC TANK WITH EFFLUENT FILTER ON OUTLET ACCESS LID GROUND SURFACE ACCESS LID EXTEND PVC HANDLE INLET LINE 0 4- DIAMETER ORENCO BIOTUBE FILTER CAST -IN-PLACE BAFFLES S I ANDAHD TANK DL FAIL JOB NO. 9340 FIG. 4 ._.,,.,.... �. _.,_...-.-................ ._........,......... . HGPWOKTII-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. May 28, 1996 r George Heinz P.O. Box 5938 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 C 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 Job No. 196 227 Subject: Additional Percolation Testing for Septic Disposal Design, Lot R82, Starwood, Pitkin County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Heinz: As requested by you, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed additional percolation testing at the subject site. We previously performed a subsoil study including percolation testing reported under Job No. 196 227, dated May 20, 1996. The initial percolation testing was performed in drilled borings and the measured slow infiltration rates did not appear representative,of the subsoils. Additional testing in the proposed septic disposal area using backhoe pits and hand excavated percolation test holes was recommended. Percolation test holes and a profile pit were excavated on May 22, 1996, at the locations shown on Fig. 1 using a rubber tired backhoe. Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of the backhoe pits. The holes were soaked on May 22, 1996. The subsoils exposed in the profile pit are similar to those encountered at the initiallytested site and 0 consist of 1 '/2 feet of topsoil overlying clayey sand and gravel with cobbles to the 6" maximum depth explored, 6 feet. No tree water was observed in the pit and the subsoils were moist. The percolation tests were conducted May 23, 1996 and the test results are summarized on Table 1. Two of the three percolation holes were tested. A third test pit had filled with irrigation water from the upper lot. The percolation rates measured were 8 and 20 minutes per inch. Based on our findings and the materials encountered, the tested site should be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic system. Based on the soil conditions, the slower rate (20 minutes per inch) appear more representative. Additional percolation testing could be conducted at the time of excavation. If you have any questions or if we may be of lurther assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, III-PWORT1I - PAWLAK Jorfiy Z. AdAmson, Jr., ! SDLP 1V Schmueser Gordon INC. ;���• �p,N ADA - 29707 ay Ilammond IiLPwolull-PAwLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Fax 970 945-8454 Phone 970 945-7988 SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED RESIDENCE LOT R82, STARWOOD PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 196 227 MAY 20, 1996 PREPARED FOR: GEORGE HEINZ P.O. BOX 5938 SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO 81615 I! 0 0 I-iEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. May 20, 1996 r George Heinz P.O. Box 5938 Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 Job No. 196 227 Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Residence, Lot R82, Starwood, Pitkin County, Colorado. Dear Mr. Heinz: 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 a thin layer of topsoil overlying medium dense clayey sand and gravel with cobbles. Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. Percolation testing was performed south of the residence area. The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Site specific percolation testing should be conducted for the septic disposal system. 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, HEPWORTI-I - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. - 4 Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. Rev. By: SLP DEM/ro 4 - TABLE OF CONTENTS :�l PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY .............................. 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION .................................. 1 SITE CONDITIONS .......................:................. 2 FIELD EXPLORATION ....................................... 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ................................... 3 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 3 FOUNDATIONS ....................................... 3 FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ..................... 4 FLOORSLABS ......................................... 6 UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ................................. 6 SITE GRADING ....................................... 7 SURFACE DRAINAGE .................................. 7 TESTING 8 PERCOLATION ................................. LIMITATIONS..... ...................................... 8 i FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS FIGURE 5 - GRADATION TEST RESULTS TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS H -P GEOTECH L.— . w., , r.,,.,,- - .- ,.. i._ ......._.. _.._.... PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence to be located on Lot R82, Starwood, Pitkin County, Colorado. The project site is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the foundation design and to evaluate the feasibility of a septic disposal system. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to George IIeinz dated May 1, 1996. A field exploration program consisting of exploratory borings and percolation testing 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 and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation. This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions, design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The design for the proposed residence had not yet been developed at the time of this report. We assume the house will be a 2 story wood frame structure over a walkout basement level. Ground floor will be slab -on -grade. 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. When building location, grading and loading information have been developed, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations presented in this report. H -P GEOTECH C 0 SITE CONDITIONS The site was vacant at the time of our field work. The grading of the site appears to be natural with a small amount of fill adjacent to Stewart Drive. Near the road, the lot is a grassy field that slopes gently down to the west for about 100 feet from Stewart Drive. Below the field, the building area slopes down to the west at grades of 15 % to 20 I and is vegetated with oak brush and grass. Below the building area, the lot steepens to about 30% down to the west and is vegetated with dense oak brush. Cobbles and boulders are exposed at the ground surface of the brush covered terrain. FIELD EXPLORATION The held exploration for the project was conducted on May 3, 1996. Three exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Pig. 1 to evaluate the subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous flight augers powered by a track -mounted CME -45 drill rig. The borings were logged by a representative of IIepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. Tile percolation test was conducted to evaluate the infiltration characteristics of the subsoils. Samples of the subsoils were taken with 13/s inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers. The samplers were 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, Pig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project engineer and testing. H -P GEOTECH • sm SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about '/z foot of topsoil overlying medium dense, clayey sand and gravel containing cobbles and sandstone fragments. Occasional sand seams were encountered in the deposit. Drilling in the gravel with auger equipment was difficult due to the cobbles (or possible boulders) and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content and density, and gradation analyses. Results of consolidation testing performed on a relatively undisturbed drive sample of the sandy clay matrix soils, presented on rig. 4, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting. Results of gradation analyses performed on small diameter drive samples (minus 1'/2 inch fraction) of the natural coarse granular soils are shown on Pig. 4. The laboratory testing is summarized in Table I. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the subsoils were moist. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FOUNDATIONS Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the nature of the proposed construction, we recorrunend 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 2,000 psf. Based on H -P GEOTECH r experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. 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) All existing topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed ' and the footing bearing level extended down to relatively dense natural I, granular soils. If water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should be dewatered before concrete placement. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing f excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. I 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 I 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 I consisting of the on-site granular soils. H -P GEOTECH NOW -5- 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. The on-site soils, excluding topsoil and oversized rock should be suitable for reuse as backfill. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the material is placed correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the backfill. The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of .45. Passive pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of 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. H -P GEOTECH ■ o -6- FLOOR SLABS f 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 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 that local perched groundwater may develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such as retaining walls, crawlspace and basement areas, be protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system. The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall 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 H -P GEOTECH 4 No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of r 2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 1'/x feet deep. SITE GRADING The risk of construction induced slope instability at the site appears low provided the building is located above the steep 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 8 to 10 feet. Pills should be limited to about 8 to 10 feet deep, especially at the 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 risk of slope instability will be increased if seepage is encountered in cuts and flatter slopes may be necessary. If seepage is encountered in permanent cuts, an investigation should be conducted to determine if the seepage will adversely affect the cut stability. 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: 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. H -P GEOTECH ■- .....­..._., ,...,,.....i,....... 3) C • 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 soils to reduce surface water infiltration. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. PERCOLATION TESTING Percolation test holes were drilled with 6 -inch diameter auger at the locations shown on Fig. 1. The subsoils encountered in the profile boring are shown graphically on Pig. 2 and consist of '/2 foot of topsoil overlying clayey sand and gravel with cobbles. The holes were soaked on May 3, 1996. When the percolation testing was performed on May 4, 1996, there was still water in the percolation holes from the previous days soaking. The percolation test results shown on Table II indicate the area is not suitable for a conventional infiltration septic system. There may be other areas on the lot that have faster percolation rates. Occasionally with auger borings, in clayey soils, the sides of the holes become smeared with clay which slows the percolation rate. We recommend that further percolation testing be performed using backhoe pits and hand excavated percolation test holes to determine the percolation rates at the site specific septic disposal area. ,s (�/� s P", f . LIMITATIONS "Phis study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory borings H -P GEOTECH drilled at 'the locations indicated on Pig. 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. 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, IEPWORTII - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. ` L Daniel B. Hardin, Reviewed By: Steven L. Pawlak, P.E. DSII/ro cc: Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. - Attn: Jay Hammond � r-• H -P GEOTECH APPROXIMATE SCALE I = I00 LOT R 82 I BF.NCHMARK: GROUND SURFACE I LOT R 81 AT NORTHEAST PROPERTY I CORNER. ELEV. = 100.0 ASSUM D BORING I • Pi BORING P �p �.,Zt P 3 p�LE BORING 0 HEF'WORTH-PAWLAKI. .. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS f Fig, l (0l: 997 ...-������nn 1-., e..r r.nn. n r�n�� TrnT gins r�. u LEGEND: TOPSOIL; clay, sandy, organic, with roots, medium stiff, moist, dark brown. o: SAND AND GRAVEL. (GC -SQ; clayey with cobbles, occasional sand seams, sandstone fragments, medium dense, moist, reddish brown. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2 -inch I.D. California liner sample. Drive sample; standard penetration test (SPT); 1 3/8 -inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D-1586 10/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 10 blows of a 140 -pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches. TPractical refusal to drill augers. NOTES 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on May 3,1996 with a flinch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings wore measured by instrument level and refer to the Bench Mark on Fig. 1. 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. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Water Content (%) DD = Dry Density (pcf) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve. -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve. 196 227 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 3 4 Moisture Content = 14.3 percent Dry Unit Weight = 116 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay Matrix From: Boring 2 at 1/2 Feet No movement upon wettin 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf 196 227 I H E WORTH - PALAK AL INC. I SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS I Fig. 4 I HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. JOB NO. 196 227 TABLE I SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT (96) NATURAL DRY DENSITY (pct) GRADATION PERCENT PASSING N0. 200 SIEVE ATTERBERG LIMITS UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (PSF) SOIL OR BEDROCK TYPE BORING DEPTH fleet) GRAVEL (%) SAND I%) LIQUID LIMIT (%) PLASTIC INDEX l%) 1 4 9.5 24 clayey sand and gravel 2 - 1/2 14.3 116 sandy clay matrix 4 & 9 (combined) 14.4 22 39 39 clayey sand and gravel Profile 4 11.9 29 38 33 clayey sand and gravel lab.sum HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE II PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 196 227 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 �12 %i 15 10 10 0 0 10 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 0 10 10 0 P-2 28114 15 I 7 1/4 7 1/8 1/8 240 7 1/8 7 1/8 7 7 0 7 7 0 7 7 0 P-3 25314 15 8 8 0 240 8 8 0 8 8 0 8 1 73/4 1 1/4 73/4 1 73/4 0 Note: The percolation holes were drilled with 6 -inch diameter auger and soaked on May 3, 1996. When the percolation tests were performed on May 4, 1996, the holes still had water in them from the previous day. I / APPRuXIMATE SCALE I = I00 I BENCHMARK: GROUND SURFACE I I LOT R 81 AT NORTHEAST PROPERTY CORNER. ELEV. = 100.0 ASSUM D I ADDITIONALpl P RCO ATlZ4 gyp? T ST �RE PRQ,� 6• BORWG I LOT R 82 f 8P3 P I BORING P � P 3 8 PROFILE / BORING I 0 196 227 1 HEPWORTH-PAWLAK I LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TABLE I PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 196 227 HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH (INCHES) LENGTH OF INTERVAL (MIN) WATER DEPTH AT START OF INTERVAL (INCHES) WATER DEPTH AT END OF INTERVAL (INCHES) DROP IN WATER LEVEL (INCHES) AVERAGE PERCOLATION RATE (MIN./INCH) P-1 31 10 refill refill refill refill 7 1/2 ' 5 1/2 2 8 9 6 1/2 2 1/2 91/4 7 21/4 7 5 1/2 1 1/2 8 1/2 7 1 1/2 7 53/4 1 1/4' 8 63/4 1 1/4 63/4 5 1/2 1 1/4 P-2 32 10 refill refill refill 7 1/2 61/4 1 1/4 20 7 6 1 6 5 1/2 1/2 6 3/4 6 1/4 1/2 6 1/4 53/4 1/2 7 1/4 63/4 1/2 6314 61/4 1/2 6 1/4 53/4 1/2 P-3 (See note below) Note: Holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on May 22, 1996. Percolation tests were performed on May 23, 1996. Percolation test at hole 3 was not performed because the pit had filled with irrigation water overnight. I 'f STARWOOD WATER DISTRICT 0121 Stewart Drive Aspen, Colorado 81611 TO: Nancy Emerson Pitkin County Environmental Health FROM: Julia Johnston, Secretar t�� Starwood Water District DATE: March 13, 1998 RE: Water Service - Tract R-82, Starwood This is to confirm that the Starwood Water District will supply water to the new residence on Tract R-82, 0200 Stewart Drive, Starwood Subdivision. If you have any questions, please call me at 925-8939. 40 E TO: MEMORANDUM County Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Planner RE: Garfield Scenic Overlay/Ridgeline Review DATE: February 17, 1998 REQUEST: The applicants propose to construct a residence within a mapped Ridgeline Review area, and the proposed residence will break the ridgeline. APPLICANTS: Ron & Lily Garfield REPRESENTATIVE: Dave Panico LOCATION: Lot R-82, Starwood Subdivision; Stewart Drive ZONING: The property is zoned RS -20 and contains approximately 5.1 acres. REFERRAL COMMENTS from the Zoning Officer and the Starwood Homeowners Association are included in the staff comments below and are attached for reference. Homeowners' Association: The Starwood Architectural Committee has approved preliminary plans for the residence, and the Association supports the siting and design of the residence as proposed. They note that moving the residence farther down the slope would result in increased vegetation removal and grading for a driveway, and would increase the visual impacts of the residence. STAFF COMMENTS: nic Overlav/Ridgeline Review: The intent of the Scenic Overlay with respect to ridgeline development is "to maintain a natural silhouette against the sky and to steer development away from ridgelines throughout the County as viewed from public roadway corridors". Section 3-60.40 of the Land Use Code establishes the following review criteria for development within scenic overlay/ridgeline areas: 1. Whether the development has utilized existing topography and natural vegetation, such as ridges and hills to screen buildings to the maximum extent possible. Response: The existing topography does not provide any opportunity to screen the residence from the highway. Existing vegetation (scrub oak, serviceberry, choke cherry) will be maintained, but will not screen the residence. 2. Whether the development has been designed to complement the natural topography of the land, including, whenever possible and appropriate, the utilization of innovative architectural techniques such as earth sheltered design, natural materials and coloring, non-reflectability and clustering of structures on the least visible portions of the site. Response: The entire property is visible from the highway. The residence has been designed to step down the hillside, and the lower level will be buried into the hillside with only the south -facing elevation fully above grade. As represented in the application, "the exterior of the structure will be finished in earth tones, the roof will be either wood or asphalt shingle, the south facing walls will be covered in putty colored stucco, and any metal roofing will be non -reflective". Staff recommends that the exterior be finished with earth tones consistent with the colors of the surrounding earth and vegetation. 3. Whether the development's height and bulk has been designed to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, the visibility of buildings from the highway and public viewplanes. Response: The applicants propose to construct an approximately 5,000 square foot residence, where 15,000 square feet is allowed in the RS -20 zone district. Due to the slope, the bulk of the residence is visible from the highway, but the structure has been wrapped around the hillside to break up the mass. The highest point on the south -facing facade measures 31.5 feet from grade to the top of a ridge that runs perpendicular to the highway. The height decreases as the residence wraps around to the sides and both ends of the structure are only one-story in height. 4. The proposed structure shall be placed so it does not break a ridgeline, unless there are no alternate building sites on the lot. Response: The residence will break the ridgeline and be visible against the sky when viewed from two stretches of the highway between the Airport Business Center and the north end of the runway near Shale Bluffs. However, a distant ridge prevents the residence from being silhouetted against the sky, and therefore from breaking the ridgeline, along that entire stretch of the highway. The flattest portion of the lot is located on top of the ridge adjacent to Stewart Drive. The proposed residence is located below the ridge where the hillside becomes much steeper. In order not to break the ridgeline, the residence would have to be moved farther down the hill and the resulting driveway cut would be very visually impactive. In comparison the impact of a large driveway cut seems to be greater than the impact of a portion of the residence breaking the ridgeline. In addition, the adjacent residences are all similarly situated just below the ridgeline with a portion of the residences breaking the ridgeline. 5. Whether the proposed development has avoided the location of uses on the highest ground or most visible portion of the site as viewed from State Highway 82 and public right-of-ways, identified in Section (B) (1)• Response: The residence will not be located on the highest portion of the site, and as stated previously, the entire parcel is visible from the highway, though it is located at a distance of almost 5,000 feet from the highway. 6. Whether the development has been located outside of the designated Scenic Overlay, or on a suitable site at the greatest distance possible from State Highway 82 and identified ridgelines. Response: The residence is proposed to be constructed on the most suitable site at the greatest distance possible from the mapped ridgeline without creating additional visual impacts with a longer road cut in a steep slope. 7. Whether the development has been landscaped in accordance with the adopted State Highway 82 Corridor landscape guidelines and has preserved natural vegetation, to the maximum extent possible, including the avoidance of development within irrigated meadows. Existing vegetation shall be maintained to the maximum extent possible, while using existing vegetation to screen development. A landscaping plan shall be submitted by the Applicant and approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Response: The applicants propose to maintain the existing vegetation, including scrub oak, serviceberry, and chokecherry, around the proposed residence. The landscape plan also shows that several 12-15 foot spruce trees will be planted below both sides of the residence. Staff recommends that spruce trees not be planted in this area since they are not consistent with the existing vegetation and will not serve to screen the residence. . 8. Whether the development's exterior lighting has been designed in such a manner that light sources, such as facade and landscape lighting, will not be seen from public right-of-ways as identified in Section (B)(1). In addition, an application shall be consistent with the lighting regulations identified in the Pitkin County Land Use Code. Response: As represented in the application, all exterior lights on the south side will be "recessed, wall mounted louvered step lights" and landscaping on the south side will not be lighted. All other exterior lighting will comply with the Code regulations. Staff recommends that exterior lighting on the house and landscape lighting be prohibited, except on the north side of the residence where it will not be visible from the highway. 9. Landforms and earth moving shall generally not be acceptable as the sole measure of compliance with these regulations. These methods may be acceptable when utilized as one ofseveral methods to complement and enhance development, rather than as the single device for screening development from view from the State Highway 82 Corridor and as mapped. Response: Landforms will not be used for screening. 10. Whether the development has been designed so as to avoid, to the maximum extent possible, any Scenic Viewplane identified on the adopted State Highway 82 Corridor Master Plan and Down Valley Comprehensive Plan. Response: No such Scenic Viewplane applies to this property. 11. In the case where 1041 Hazard Areas may be in conflict with preservation of scenic areas, the Board acknowledges that 1041 issues take precedence over scenic concerns. These issues shall be reviewed on a case by case basis. Response: 1041 Hazards are not being reviewed since this lot is within an approved subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the Garfield Ridgeline Review, subject to the -onditions in the attached resolution. ATTACHMENTS A. Zoning Office comments B. Starwood Architectural Committee letter N r RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF PITIIN COUNTY, COLORADO, GRANTING RIDGELINE REVIEW APPROVAL TO RON & LILY GARFIELD Resolution No. 98- • 1. Ron and Lily Garfield, hereafter "Applicants", have applied to the Planning and Zoning Commission of Pitkin County, Colorado, hereafter "Commission", for ridgeline review approval for a new single-family residence within the mapped ridgeline area, pursuant to Section 3-60.40 of the Pitkin County Land Use Code (hereafter "Code"). 2. The lot is zoned RS -20 and contains approximately 5.1 acres. ;. Said parcel is located on Stewart Drive, and is described as Lot R-82, Starwood Subdivision. 4. The Commission heard this application at a public hearing on February 17, 1998, at which time evidence and testimony were presented with respect to the application. 5. The Commission finds that the application generally complies with the applicable sections of the Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Commission that it does hereby grant Ridgeline approval for the Garfield residence, subject to the following conditions: A. The applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in public hearings and in the application. B. The drawings submitted are to be used for illustrative purposes only, and should not be relied on for compliance with County zoning regulations. C. The exterior of the residence shall be finished in earth tones which blend with the colors of the natural surrounding environment. Roof materials shall be non -reflective. D. Existing vegetation shall be retained as shown on the Landscape Plan. The proposed spruce trees shall be removed from the Plan. L Resolution No. PZ -98 -- Page 2 101 E. Native shrubs and grasses shall be utilized for revegetation of disturbed areas. All disturbance caused by construction shall be revegetated no later than one growing season after completion of construction. F. Exterior lighting and landscape lighting shall be prohibited, except on the north side of the residence where it will not be visible from the highway and except where necessary to comply with health and safety requirements of the Uniform Building Code. Any permitted exterior lighting shall be down -lighting and shall comply with the Code regulations in effect at the time of building permit issuance. APPROVED AND ADOPTED ON THE 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 1998. ATTEST: Lance Clarke Deputy Director APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Ely, County Attorney Case #p 141-97 PID #2643-263-03-001 suzannew\pitkin\cases\scenic\garfie ld\reso. doc PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO David Guthrie, Chair Date APPROVED AS TO CONTENT: Cindy Houben, Community Development Director L ASPEN/PITKIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone (970) 920-5090 FAX (970) 920-5439 MEMORANDUM TO: County Attorney Zoning Starwood Homeowners Association FROM: Suzanne Wolff, Community Development Department RE: Garfield Ridgeline Review Parcel ID =2643-263-03-001 DATE: December 1. 1997 ti1C rI Z� Attached for your review and comments is an application submitted by Ron and Lily Garfield. The Planning Commission will review the application on February 17, 1998. Please return your comments to me no later than �anuary 30, 1998. Thank you. /-13--�� 4ryq . WILLIAM LUKES + ASSOCIATES P R O J E C T M A N A G E M E N T ARCH IT ECTURE 27 January 1998 Suzanne Wolff Pitkin County Community Development Department 130 South Galena Aspen, Colorado 81611 re: Garfield Ridgeline Review Parcel ID 2643-263-03-001 A—,% ✓ Suzanne: We received your notification dated December 1, 1997 and Meg Haynes, Chairman of the Starwood Homeowners Association Board of Trustees, asked me to respond on behalf of the Association. The Starwood Architectural Committee has an active application from Lily and Ron Garfield for the project which has been submitted to your department. The Committee gave Preliminary Approval on November 11, 1997 to the same plans as were furnished to us by your office, and we anticipate that the owners will return for our Final Review in the next few months. Please consider this letter as a response from Starwood Homeowners Association in support of the request of Lily and Ron Garfield for approval to build their house as shown on the plans furnished to us, in such form as may be finally approved by the Association. The Garfields have spent considerable time working with the Association and their future neighbors to develop a site plan and house design which minimizes impacts on all concerned. As I am sure that you know, the site slopes continuously from Stewart Drive down to the river, and the slope increases quite a bit as you move away from Stewart Drive. The Starwood Board of Trustees has inspected both the site and the height poles and they have determined that the proposed location represents an effective balance of apparent or visible building height, protection of views, and protection of existing vegetation. We believe that moving the house farther down the slope will result in significant loss of native vegetation and increased grading for an access drive, both of which would increase the visual impacts of the house within Starwood and also from the Highway 82 view corridor. In addition, it appears to us that the Garfields have designed a home which is relatively low in height and which respects both the County's ridgeline considerations and existing view planes from neighboring homes. The Board has sought the input of potentially affected neighbors, and the consensus was that this plan represents an excellent solution. Please let me know if you would like any additional information or if we can be of any assistance. Cordially, V �t� William Lukes AIA Architectural Advisor to the Starwood Architectural Committee POST OFFICE BOX 8289 copies: Meg Haynes ASPEN COLORADO 81612 970.92o.6929 FAX 920.6986 f i eyIT-e PLAIT ft 40I f4h%W LE • R,G}Ci'rEC`.TIJ RA,1. EL'L.'YS7iUN Icd-d ve.t�z5�H1�ELe V1�sL1.o1J't.12-d' =.'t'RG GH.CLTGRC:LNE:."Of-Tkt.i1,A.1.N .__. 1,L'�_DGQjL�3 bTtD�T.i-fGMri�"CN;%bQT4± U.CsW-DrIN T,liB.L I V,1NG- R[�3rrt . . avvl:tlx:ctr,�a1>r1rTH fri'F::DAI_Y n. T4TY =NLLJl'i M 2D �: $'15. . e fRoPo5%D -- l'D�+(�-t�J 99g9WW T7IACTOR TD -.. coRt�P�I�GTaoara aa. D:R.L44A��1r..ON'-�pYtCGa. _ I�1 15 CAkM1PRJ� C6. L1�5f2. v�L1T as _i::aruTa.>cxnRio�l2ecryrzi fir-.,slurul. -�I.u'ncr �r5rve�aw,E c� �ro ZA Tpe Ffu7rmEA RflilveNGE W -C e1VED I041 &GGEL7NE REv7EW'raevaova rtrat .I'li'LlN: 45UN.TY ?LANwNA bi?CfF: lw.lUNE cr 2A?'L. .......... i W F x� L o 1 cy SHEET NUMBER _ t Ali I i i J4Ld 23,2471 j IEVI t1 • f ji I 1D !-A kit I N G 6 G++ E. D u 1L -E. .t N z� ..%xfTi' �I.d.N.GEnItZAL.NOT.ES H . -N-r¢y VdTTDjs1 U z Et E Fv�i w r LL£VEL. alwr IRI ham, r•j&T ' O 1 0 T�dl -t VEI f1.G:7lZAsMAi .. I hTR[TC.'fUP_AL �eNEZttiI._:eiQtBP! . 2=�INAATtL15,t .YCA7�T .. : Az U ,. - cn IM^ ' F+1 K U �*/0� VJ W � i Aa i W F x� L o 1 cy SHEET NUMBER _ t Ali I i i J4Ld 23,2471 j IEVI t1 • f ji I 1D !-A kit I N G 6 G++ E. D u 1L -E. .t o ..%xfTi' �I.d.N.GEnItZAL.NOT.ES i W F x� L o 1 cy SHEET NUMBER _ t Ali I i i J4Ld 23,2471 j IEVI t1 • f ji I 1D !-A kit I N G 6 G++ E. D u 1L -E. .t ... ..%xfTi' �I.d.N.GEnItZAL.NOT.ES A� . -N-r¢y i W F x� L o 1 cy SHEET NUMBER _ t Ali I i i J4Ld 23,2471 j IEVI t1 • f ji I 1D !-A kit I N G 6 G++ E. D u 1L -E. .t ... ..%xfTi' �I.d.N.GEnItZAL.NOT.ES . -N-r¢y VdTTDjs1 U z Et E z� LL£VEL. alwr IRI ham, r•j&T �cVEL� L.Fc.T l:�Eli'K�LELEL•fLmRAQE11. 1 0 T�dl -t VEI f1.G:7lZAsMAi .. I hTR[TC.'fUP_AL �eNEZttiI._:eiQtBP! . 2=�INAATtL15,t .YCA7�T .. : 1 Fy .t47ZNT.RSY-Lev—Tlz G'. -.- - cn hal i W F x� L o 1 cy SHEET NUMBER _ t Ali I i i J4Ld 23,2471 j IEVI t1 • f ji I A � u • ' S> sr Nonoses