Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.eh.264335401009 (1982)ASPEN,OPITKIN $Tacw«•o �+O ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT INDIVID'JAI, SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT NO. TYPE OF PERMIT: [YtInitirl Construction ( )Emergency Use ( )Repair work,(Pievious Permit 1 _) ( )Alteration of an existing system, rr�� or instailation (Previous Permit f .) ( )Use Permit as a result of sale ( )othori ISSUED TO: DATE OF ISSIIE•J'2.31?Z-- Osler dF� Home Phone l3 692'%l35'Business Phone d `ling 0 A/�dIOAA) Address I �S✓1NGTv1I &01AIG-1111M Agent L ����ff�� Phone 0C-IPE_P_i Address ��-C-tel ✓L t Sewage Disposal System Work to be performed by`�9�i/KfSj�G�/7 This permit valid only for premises location by the followinq legal descriptions ko-F 9 Cil '54-IeI OD ^ _ LOT SIZE 71� 5 Acle y , WATER SUPPLY affiV%5/bIJ t)A WELL-. AVERAGE PERC=ATION RATE 2 / l ?s1s Indis•idual sewage CisposAl permit is granted with regard to the following usesSj3L•C!/9f410 /1Fa(�l=Nle-l<• Ntrabor oft Dodreoms Lofts ® Carbagc Disposals` I Dishwashers �i Clothes Hashers CALCULATED INER141: LAILY WASTE LOAD crn GALLONS. �- THE TSTA I? OF -HE SYS -EM '�'l IT• T T\ TUNDER 'r`= TC .E �' ,...L�E� UDE .HIS PEMIT: t Types of Tank or Treatrncnt Units �e-^r AEAATgD PA0KACe- )OZAA)—1 Tank Capaci�.t+y�� {� _Callon Minimum :SCtho3 of Final DisposalsA.er�o� - .5FE Square Feet Hinimuss T�N� E� Absorptioa hrea Dccerlp'ion (including brand name, if any) of other equipment or•Appurtnaneess W rrH z FEET of GgAVFL ES - 3 -E -r PLA ►.l t 1 Al S A L Lr D o mAAj l��d�5 A amclgc 175 �ELo D I s rye I [3��T� ogJ L-�� Fi rE2 PE/� APC_ P�e.l Fl T/o�S Other Condition! or Epccificationss FEa> OF S'H'AG -"S SQUIRING INSPECTION BY THE HEALTH DEPAM1ENT: ' )fivfore Excavation �up--n corpietion of excavation and prior to p1teement of gravel X nefore covering distrihution aysten of AiJ;Orpt_on f'_cld XPrior to backfill of any cuaper.cnt ( )Other, Specifyt flan!, an.' spe.ification< of the proposed sewage disposal sv-item have Baan reviewed .Tnd are ccnsilcre: satisfactory. Permission Z.+ %..r:[ -r to •t.c o,rer or :.is :,•;c^• to �,-rtnrn the work indir_uted atxTve in a_cordance with thq r:tk:n County IndividUaL Rcvula:-ons i;; c:ic•.t on the date of I,sue . In addition to vencral provisanns set forth on the reverse heraoi, this Permit .a 901,)c^t to the follow'.r.I additional terra:r and conditions. l APP?0OV 2 :OR ISSUE BY ��l" :./ (t;tie) t- �i i The el:n•e in�lividuAl srvago dispe�at syetoa Installed by _ AC.r �G/ ��Y�_ h..,s brim ina•ectcd for use by a re^rruclt.lstve c.t thn At.�:en%P::notcc:n .ra hral ncnt. Tho uwnur 31.3 ";"a rcr(�otalail:ty to ca3o Ot izilure Or t,1au-quac, of th.c ocwa.;_ d"Po.31 rystcm. C:rplcto es-tailt draw'ny attochodQ0 0•t"iilaA.. I ... IN -nE R� I D1'.,E O1' FIi�. L.S. T N ! BY: • ._._ �.r. i T 1.. _ 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 3 /9 5-2020 , ASPENOPITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. DEPARTMENT SE!WME PHONE Naw.e_ ot UIAKRE)rl. Ac IER 7A of :-,,PPL I "P.17 T rL QF FElm T New x;.statiP.t1cn is S )A—erption ,',IT due tc `al. f4 di[' Pr Cr f r"lvt FtUtUy &4PIUV-E' t )Other TV P Six -6 of Lot Dr.- V --A- ;IA'I Any f,.rt diticna to the Z e p, 3 -a S Ac. a, Or Cr cLcak !'nr 0, spo3A L -YS'l E;A - surtic F!eld t rlant,-'Ab.-Mrption field j )Compo*%iig Toi!,4tt C nd U41 other use lorh-r: t -Ile injti3l sibs lupe tion "-forw a re—it car, be 70C, 1.;P1F0,'PTTX:W :v TNZ 5YZTZM. 4f- twcri!-y rqhj"'to,?A. The zhat thr: 4I.C.Ife t:f..)r=rtifm It true and 'zhot fd's- will 'i-141idate t!'= rmd en ru Lccom--m. Lhe �,cve z! r j 3. rrn7,<--rty lines end 'tY px,,, ,josea &ra cx�st :iq water wejIs :)n scbject P. '7•, C' Provert, an'; el rrigR,�j�Lr.., itche-ei, and 0-ther V--rcams, lake�!, Puqr;s, j C. vl:arosed and e-xi!-.zj.nz: sYste-,%s 0a bviLiccA rxor.erty. J. SUBMIT P. R71:7,77= PLO O. T PLkNi PR -10-1 To CONSTRUCTICiN IF INSTALLINTION IS To PLAN. !?PP icat O'l fv�� UsAdC':Siqne'5 hal'Aly atkaodl edges rtc-Irit 7f CUS zew`�m d'st0.3 �xl P 49 2- by ps 1510 130 South 'Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 I- J. thi pl'ease bircat-e the f:A10w5.rcj items by maaz-.:red 3. rrn7,<--rty lines end 'tY px,,, ,josea &ra cx�st :iq water wejIs :)n scbject P. '7•, C' Provert, an'; el rrigR,�j�Lr.., itche-ei, and 0-ther V--rcams, lake�!, Puqr;s, j C. vl:arosed and e-xi!-.zj.nz: sYste-,%s 0a bviLiccA rxor.erty. J. SUBMIT P. R71:7,77= PLO O. T PLkNi PR -10-1 To CONSTRUCTICiN IF INSTALLINTION IS To PLAN. !?PP icat O'l fv�� UsAdC':Siqne'5 hal'Aly atkaodl edges rtc-Irit 7f CUS zew`�m d'st0.3 �xl P 49 2- by ps 1510 130 South 'Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/925-2020 0 14 ti ft CO 0 1 LLr- f $ !'E",n GR�`�`✓`'- � icy e yoea s UP-FL()W FILTFR M O D E L .T-- I G / 9 1 /f, 2 ft Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSULTING GEOLOGIST PO BOX 10935 ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 (303) 925-6020 .1 June 7th, 1982 Herb Klein Sachs, Klein & Seigle 201 Porth Mill St. Aspen, Co. 81611 RE: Nicols Building Site, Starwood Dear Herb: After several meetings with you; Jack Miller and a site inspection with Bruce Marvin of Western Engineers, and having visited the site myself several times, I offer the following observations: The parcel is generally southwest sloping, covered with scrub oak, some native grasses and other mountain brush. There are large granitic boulders on the site which have been deposited by the first valley glacier to move down the Roaring Fork Valley. There are no permanent drainages on the property nor are there any significant gullys; however, there is a large irrigation ditch that crosses through the northeast corner of the property. The building site itself has been staked out, although it is my understanding that the building has been somewhat adjusted in its orientation since my visit. The slope in general throughout the lot is 20-25 percent, but the building site itself is somewhat gentler -- perhaps 15 percent. The geology of the site consists of a thin veneer of top soil, perhaps one to two feet thick lying on top of colluvium of unknown thickness, probably no more than 5 or 10 feet thick. These lie on top of glacial moraine "C" of Quarternary age. All of this material, perhaps 50-100 feet thick, lies on top of the Pennsylvanian -Permian aqe Maroon Formation which consists of hematite -cemented silt -stone, sandstone and some shales. The regional dip of the Maroon Formation in this vicinity is generally about 40 degrees to the southwest, but cannot be established with this parcel because of the thick surficial deposits which cover outcroppings. It is known that a portion of the Castle Creek fault zone comes within perhaps a quarter mile of this site, down in the valley of the Roaring Fork, but since this is a very old fault system and has been inactive for millions of years, it should not pose any problem to construction of a single family dwelling on this parcel. Although there are large boulders on the site, there were none poised above the building site which might provide a hazard by rolling down the slope. The terrain is moderately steep, so that precautions should be taken to minimize any potential soil creep or movement of earth down slope. I have examined much of that hillside and, together with my 7 years experience in this area, I am not familiar with any hillside creep or sliding in this immediate area except when soils of this character are super -saturated with water, either through leaking of an irrigation ditch or breaching of an irrigation ditch. Therefore, my recommendations to insure stability of the building site are that potential leaking or overflow of the irrigation ditch be minimized by culverting from where the ditch flows under the road back up the ditch to the property line, or at least a safe distance from the building site. Culverting will prevent significant leakage from the ditch and also prevent any possible overflow of the ditch onto the subject property, therby possibly adversely affecting the foundation of the building. In addition, all landscaping should be designed to take surficial water and shallow subsurface water away from the home site. This can be accomplished by french drains around the perimeter of the home, intercept ditches between road runoff and ditch runoff and the home, and general grading features around the home which will direct surface flow away from or around the future home. The forthcoming recommendations of Western Engineers should be followed as to the specific foundation design and perimeter drainages affecting the site. I accompanied Bruce Marvin of Western Engineers on his site inspection and assisted in taking the necessary samples and readings toward this end. It was our preliminary feeling at this point that the site is suitable for development of a single family dwelling and that normal mitigation techniques could be implemented. I hope that most, if not however, if there are further I do plan to revisit the site conditions are consistent with NL/dsf cc: Jack Miller Bruce Marvin all, of your questions have been answered; questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. once excavation is completed to insure that our original findings. Sincerely, Nicholas Lampiris'' Consulting Geologist 0 I've. CONSULTING ENGINEERS/ LAND SURVEYORS 2150 Hwy 6 & 50, Grand Junction. CO 81,501 • 3031242-5202 June 11, 1982 1� Sachs, Klein and Seigle 201 North Mill Street Aspen, CO 81611 ATTN: Herb Klein RE: Nichols Site, Lot R-101, Starwood Mr. Klein: As requested, we have performed a shallow soil investigation and analysis for the proposed residential building at the above site. The soil prof i l e was examined by 3 test holes located as shavn on the enclosed map. Since access onto the site with excavating or drilling equipment was not possible, the excavations were made with hand means. The holes were hand dug by shovel to the 2 foot depth. Sampling below the 2 foot depth was performed by driving a standard split spoon sampler with a 35 pound drop ha7rner falling 24 inches. A penetration resistance record was maintained as well as retrieving samples. Hole No. 1 and 3 were driven to the 5 1/2 foot depth and Hole No. 2 was driven to the 5 foot depth. The soil profile was found to consist of a moderately well graded clay -silt -gravel material. The fine grained fraction exhibits low to moderate plasticity and can be classified as a silty clay. The coarse fraction consists of a combination of sandstone and basalt gravels and cobbles. Some scattered boulders are found on the surface at the site. The recovered samples revealed a somewhat lensed appearance indicating a colluvial deposit within the exploration depth. The gradation of a bulk sample taken from the upper part of Hole No. 3 is enclosed. The soil at this site varied from moist to semi -saturated, becoming higher in moisture content with depth. It appeared that the moisture content increased substantially below the 4 foot depth. A su ry of the test data follows: f . Hole and Moisture Penetration Dry Depth Content (o) Resistance Density (Blows/Ft.) (PCF) l @ 1-2 Ft. 12.6 -- 116.6 1 @ 2-2.5 Ft. -- 20 1 @ 2.5-3 Ft. -- 36 -- 1 @ 3-3.5 Ft. 18 18 -- 1 @ 3.5-4 Ft. 18 20 -- 1 @ 4-4.5 Ft. 18 28 -- 1 @ 4.5-5 Ft. 18 52 -- 1 @ 5-5.5 Ft. 23 36 -- 2 @ 2-2.5 Ft. 17.2 44 -- 2 @ 2.5-3 Ft. 17.2 44 -- 2 @ 3-3.5 Ft. 17.2 28 -- 2 @ 3.5-4 Ft. 17.2 30 -- .2 @ 4-4.5 Ft. -- 28 -- 2 @ 4.5-5 Ft. -- 72 -- 3 @ 1-2 Ft. 13.0 -- 111.2 3 @ 2-2.5 Ft. 12.1 48 -- 3 @ 2.5-3 Ft. 12.1 48 -- 3 @ 3-3.5 Ft. -- 32 -- 3 @ 3.5-4 Ft. -- 32 -- 3 @ 4-4.5 Ft. 33.7 36 -- 3 @ 4.5-5 Ft. 33.7 38 -- 3 @ 5-5.5 Ft. 23.7 64 -- It can also be noted from this data that the penetration resistance consistently increases at about the 5 foot depth. It is possible that the colluvial reworking ends at this depth. The expioration revealed that the top foot of soil is a somewhat organic topsoil, and -that the upper 2 feet of soil is considerably rockier than that found from the 2 to 5 foot depth. The characteristics of the soil below the 5 foot depth were not determined. Torvane shear tests were performed in the holes from the 1 to 2 foot depth. These tests indicated an average vane shear strength of 440 psf. Based on the average of these shear tests along with the penetration resistance results, the bearing capacity of this material under natural moisture conditions is generally relatively high. Ha•�ever, isolated spots of lower load carrying capacity were encountered, These isolated areas exhibited bearing values of about 1,000 psf. A uniform allowable bearing capacity under full design loads of 1,500 psf may be used if the foundation is designed with adequate strength to distribute foundation loads uniformly to the soil. This would include designing foundations to be capable of free spanning at least 10 feet in order to bridge over soft spots. Since these soils would be expected to experience a substantial loss of strength upon saturation, it is important that the supporting soils be protected from all moisture sources. Reca-u-nended moisture protection provisions are .presented in subsequent paragraphs. Two swell -consolidation tests were made on "undisturbed" samples from the upper horizons of the soil profile. These test results are enclosed. The consolidation data indicates a soil which is naturally relatively well consolidated and is not collapsible. A computer assisted analysis was per -Formed using the consolidation data to estimate the settlement potential. For the analysis it was assumed that the foundation loads will not exceed 2,000 pounds per lineal foot for walls and 12 KIPS for columns. The analysis indicated that under the applied foundation pressures previously discussed, differential foundation movement will remain within normally tolerable limits of .75 inch. The foundation recommendations presented herein as ti•:ell as the overall adequate performance of the foundation for this structure are highly dependent on the stability of the slope. We performed several direct shear tests on remolded samples from the site. The results of these tests indicated that the soil in its natural state as encountered in the shallow exploration which was done at the site possesses adequate strength to maintain stable slopes as steep as those at the building site. Ha:jever the direct shear testing and analysis procedure does not account for soil saturation which may occur from the ditch above the site or for k•:eak layers which may exist in the soil profile but were not found in the exploration. The most valuable opinion as to historic movement at the site is by a competent geologist familiar with the geologic conditions in the area. We have received a copy of a letter from Nick Lampiris, geologist, vA-io has examined the site. Based on his knowledge of the area and what is visible on the surface, he has indicated that he sees no evidence of past movement. If, as indicated, the slope is not currently moving, the house being placed at the site will not initiate slope movement if two conditions are considered in design and construction. The house must be designed to maintain the existing state of soil stresses. In other words, if the foundation walls are designed to restrain the same loads that are currently being applied before excavation, then the slope will not be destabilized by constructing the foundation. The soil on the hillside must not experience a substantial moisture increase. This involves protecting the soil from all surface and subsurface sources of water. Lateral soil loads on foundation walls and retaining structures are an important consideration in foundation design. Although there is currently no evidence of movement on the hillside as was discussed above, undercutting the slope by excavating for foundations will decrease the safety factor against movement. Regardless of whether or not instability occurs after excavation, it is important that the foundation walls be capable of restraining existing soil stresses to maintain stability, as previously discussed. This requires that walls on the upslope side of the house be designed for "at -rest" stresses which would be about 75 pounds per cubic foot equivalent fluid pressure for a sloping embankment in back of the house. Foundation walls which are on the downslope side of the house and which are not required to resist sliding may be designed for a reduced lateral pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot equivalent fluid pressure. The relatively high pressures applied to the upslope walls must be balanced by loads in the opposite direction to prevent sliding of the foundation. The resistive forces may be applied by 2 means, friction between the footings and the supporting soil, and passive soil resistance against _.footings, foundation walls, or specially designed shear keys. Allowabl-e friction under footings can be calculated by using the forniula: S = 130 + .3N Where S is the allawable friction in PSF and N is the unit load applied to the soil by the footing (dead load only) in PSF. Passive resistance pressures for compacted soil are 190 pounds per cubic foot equivalent fluid pressure. For shear keys under footings, the passive resistance can be increased by a uniform load on the face of the key equal to 150 percent of the unit load (dead load only) applied to the soil by the footing. The use of the design values presented herein for foundation walls and retaining structures requires several additional design and construction considerations. Backfill compaction is important to increase the soil strength and reduce the loads applied to walls, and to prevent the formation of depressions adjacent to walls for- water to collect in. All backfill behind foundation walls and retaining structures must be compacted to at least 85% Modified Proctor Density (ASTM D-1557). Care must be taken not to damage foundation walls during backfill placement. Positive drainage and moisture protection for slopes around the house, backfill, and soil supporting the footings is critical for both foundation and general area stability. The following items should be considered in the design: 1.) Drainage of surface water is important. Positive surface grading away from foundations, interceptor ditches, and other possible means must be employed to assure drainage of all surface runoff. Grade away from the house must be at least 10% for a minimum of 10 feet. 2.) Roof runoff must be collected and discharged wel 1 -nwaY from the foundation with little chance to percolate into the soil. 3.) To assure adequate drainage of backfill and to protect the supporting soil from moisture, a subsurface perimeter drain should be installed. Such a drainage system should consist of a perforated pipe surrounded by gravel and sloping to a discharge point away from the structure. The gravel should be underlain by an impervious membrane which is sealed against the foundation and is lapped up onto the foundation cut slope. The membrane should also slope davn to the discharge point. The membrane is an important part of this system and provisions should be made to protect it from damage during construction. In discussions with the architect, Mr. Jack Miller, he sha•:ed me a sample of "Enkadra i n" which is a spun steel void mat protected by a filter fabris on the backfill side. This material may be considered in conjunction with the subdrain system to enhance drainage provisions in the backfill. 4.) The overall stability of the proposed structure will --be highly dependent on the soil remaining as dry as possible. The ditch which runs above the site is a definite potential source of excess moisture both by seepage and by overtopping. Instability at the site could occur relatively quickly if the soil were to become saturated from this source. To minimize the potential for overtopping, and also to minimize seepage from the ditch, it would be advisable to pipe the ditch for at least 150 feet southeast from the road and 150 feet northwest from the road. The joints in the pipe must be water tight to prevent seepage. After the ditch is piped it will be necessary to assure that the inlet to the pipe remains unobstructed from ice and debris. 5.) If it is anticipated that snow drifts will form in areas behind the house, an additional subdrain which extends from the ground surface to the foundation level should be install around the upslope side of the house, at some distance from the foundation. This drain will prevent saturation of the soil due to rapid spring snowmelt and will help reduce seepage pressures from other sources. It was previously mentioned that the soil moisture content increases below the 4 foot depth. Although our exploration didn't extend very deep, this increase in moisture appears to be a result of seepage from the ditch. Previous discussions have indicated methods by which the stability of the foundation and surrounding slopes can be enhanced by protection of the soil from seepage influences. Hct,,,ever, these high moisture conditions will exist during construction increasing the potential for instability during construction. Cut slopes should therefore be watched closely for signs of novernent during construction. Due to the limited scope of exploration and testing and to the sa,t--,,,4hat heteroceneous nature of the soils at the site, the depth of cut which �,,ould be necessary to achieve a state of incipient rmvem�nt is not known. It is apparent, hc.Jever, that the less the site is changed from its existing state, the less will be the possibility of causing unstable t •, conditions. Fills and permanently exposed cut slopes should be minimized. Where the choice exists between cut or fill, fill is preferable. The granular soils at the site will provide good structural fills. Any fill supporting structures must be compacted to at least 900 Modified Proctor Density. A minimum cover of 4 feet for footings must be provided for frost protection. The most important consideration at this site which has been discussed both in this letter and in correspondence from Nick Lampiris should be re-emphasized. The subsurface soils at the site must be protected from moisture influences in order to maintain stable conditions. If you have any questions, please let me know. Submitted by: WESTERN ENGINEERS, INC. c Bruce D. Marvin, P.E. BDM:sIv U e z 14585 cc)�, C0` : • �d ..�' +� : a Y. tF.. i,r_ � _ .,,, x •.x +'i w: a �.,rF r �,f r � .r ...� d.�2� R:'.",� --.:., - ; � .-.. Q �.-i,. t+.. r hP;i•f� ��� _r#''¢'. .�• rN� :x E ti, .A 4;.. .... .. -. << .�:i}!� ,- -- ..h h "`M,... 'M... -s .. :_ '`.i.'GF r' SYS.: 't5� _ r#��'�. ;1 Y:'� ,l. "� '`•�- 'ems.-"' r,+y. 60 A. W. ••p_�• , ..,�.y±.M ., .. _ � .. , p. • _, '. . -.: ,, -.�. : ",r. wK .:f`eYr. h. sem` `'. S r n , 'vT'. I��"``"" "w Y �•�-� r w -Sic" j,?. c,�-'?t' y.,.. - =*'sv�• .�. -� £ •-Af• 'P 1r - ��Y' :- 5 X-•�r:;�r:v ti ?'•i'�'' `r ,.1"��'a 1[� '%M :ems` ;i{r. . .. '_ Y ih .Y'..• _ _ _ T.l�'w3y'. �21, - 1..'11-a '+`.'�. f} `.`YS ..: a :� .... q •, T . r �-• -tit ' �,. 'S 3 - v -r^'. '{ ,. a r... .`.. -' _:-. "�- - :;. a �. SIJ rY. :s. :� �•+. .S�"" 't,. ..�_an •:¢i1p^ �.- �. i .. ss� �.':�JM�'- �}• X-' int.>:. .- __. •-.'i'. _ .-.... r:...•„y.. ., a ,�• _ �:• :a�.. .r� :,-eTaE�c,,._h ,e i ,.; -,j., - '� :: .:'�T': _'. :n• .. ...:. '•r :: .`•Z-„_. .aJA. .x •.., , T-;y!agafrq�^^syr.,. yy �.. • ... L y {{ f' .. ,. 2. i "'..x'• ". .��,, • s , ,s_:1ffi•,. k .��'�,."•rr__.. •. ,fre_�r,_ ... �5... w#.E ..- -..' ._ w °'A..+� N r,;�... ih�'�. - �, 'Sn , ii:::,r.. _ ..,:. a., .,aC�',._. : .. �:: _y:.w _ _ Rim ��xir•'. � - .. ,.. �IW Wft f :Yh[li.'S�S�a.P1::�C.:Z$l..l��l'r•__' {T.RYifJK+.4�y�-�. _ s�sli5i,. .r wr E :,'F,•