Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpitkin.eh.273303301001 (1991)ASPEN40PITKIN ?733-03_3 —c} I- O c) 1 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT NO. TEOF PERMIT: nitial Construction ( )Emergency Use ( )Repair Work,(Pievious Permit i .) r installation ( )Use Permit as a result of Sale ( )Other: ISSUED TO: DATE OF ISSUE Owner VJ1qay< A_ddao Home Phone Business Phone Mail-ing Address Agent&E 41,I),0-S%%'Ut?-i /Q� Phone �,�� Mailing Address Sewage Disposal System Work to be performed by This permit valid only y; for premises )ocation by the following legal description: L��Tr7��L , / / /��J r, Litt SIZE 9 J / IC /� G S , WATER SUPPLY / �Ea_ , 1►VERAC.E^PERCOLATION RATF. J 41N` /(%j 413 1Gi?V This Individual Sewage Disposal Permit is granted with regard to the following use: �,�(' Gk"/�i/( L�/%N�•. Ntrabcr of: Bedrooms _ Lofts Garbage Disposals_ Dishwashers �� Clothes Washers CALCULATED AVERAGE DAILY WASTE LOAD 66 GALLONS. THE NATURE OF THE SYSTEM INCLUDED ( UNDER THIS PERMIT: yp•s of Tank or Treatment Units �1L � // MK Tank Capacity ��) _Callon Ninimua ct.hod of Final Disposals -2 F Absorptiop Area Square Feet Minimum escrip=ion (including brand name, if any) of other equipment or appurtnancess /00"fS WM ( )Alteration of an existing syst t, (Previous Permit I .) )ther Conditions or specificationst II �� STAGES REQUIRING Ij3SPECTION BY THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT: ( )Before Excavation ( )Upon completion of excavation and prior to placement of gravel ` , X{}Before covering distribution system of absorption field (X1 Prior to backfill of any component ( )Other, Specifyt Plans and specifications of the proposed sewage disposal system have been reviewed andare_ considered satisfactory. Pernissi.on is hereby grao:ted to tha owrer or his agent to perform the work indicated above in accordance with the Pitkin County Indi Vi3lial Sewa;e Disposal Re-iulations in effect on the date of issue. In addition to general provisions set forth on tt�c reverse 1:er^of, this Permit is subject to the following additional terms and conditions: Aspen/Pitkin Environmental ) en'lAPPROVED: / title Health Officer FOR ISSUE BYC _ _ ____•.___.�____.___ Thr ahovo individual sova,)o disposal system installed by hos been in::pcetcd for use by a rcpresentative cf the Ass:en Pit in Lnvir-fital lira t., Depart.mcnt. Tho owner as�r-�—• un'.aa arl recponsibil1ty in cele of failure or inadequacy of this& scwa�je disposal system. Complete as -built droving attachod. DATE OF FINAL INSPECTION I Aspen/Pitkin Environmental BY : [ /,�TITLE Health Officer 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-5070 t s 0 fi N U n S .F' cn 1# +r IN ASPEN4PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT APPLICATION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL- PERMIT, G Name of OWNER V\ r, __Pr_ PHONE -79 Address of OWNER Name of APPLICANT PERMIT TO BE: )Picked Up ( )Mailed tot . ( )Owner ( )Applicant . PHONE TYPE OF PERMIT: KNNew Installation ( )Repair ( )E)nergency Use ( )Alteration NOT due to failure LOCA?ION OF PROPOSED SYSTEM: Legal Description Lot 6, Block Filing Subdivision m 1�7Size of acres TYPE*OF STRUCTURE: W.4single Family Dwe inq ( )Other: Do you plan any further additions to the residence? ( )YES ( )NO No. of bedrooms_ No. of Lof s No. of Garbage Disposals No: of Automatic Dishwashers ` No. of Automatic Clothes Washers HATER SUPPLY: (ftfrivate Well, Depth or ( )Public, Name of System ( )Spring ( )Stream or Creek TYPES OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSEDs b4septic Tank/Absorption Field ( )Aeration Plant/Absorption Field ( )Composting Toilet ( )Incineration Toilet ( )Hound ( )Recycling, potable use ( )Recycling, other use ( )Vault Privy ( )Others The initial site inspection must be arranged with the Aspen/Pitkin Environmental Health Department (925-2020, 8:30-9:30 a.m.) before a permit can be issued. The individual sewage disposal permit must be issued before a building permit can be obtained. FINAL INSPECTION APPROVAL MUST BE GIVEN BY THE ASPEN/PITKIN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO BACKFILLING ANY PORTION OF THE SYSTEM. Application for an individua ewage disposal permit is hereby submitted. The undersigned acknowledges that the above information is true and that falser a ion wi invalidate the application and any subsequent pe mit. Signature of Applicant �! ` DATE `l i (This application becomes. invalid 12 nths from the above date.) NOTE: PLOT PLAN must be filed with this application. Please locate the following items by measured distances: 1. Property lines and dimensions. 2. Proposed and existing water wells on subject property and adjacent property. 3. Domestic water service lines. 4. Proposed and existing buildings, driveways, and other structures. S. Streams, lakes, ponds, irrigation ditches, and other water courses. 6. Proposed and existing individual sewage systems on subject property. SUBMIT A REVISED PLOT PLAN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION IF INSTALLATION IS TO BE CHANGED FROM ORIGINAL PLAN. The undejjrs�g7:ed r�eby acknowledges receipt of this individual sewage disposal pe app cation and a per, ,l[ee r. � n the amou o! S ` j 6), Receipt Number , Date Fee Received t -by ' `�"'� Administrativo Officer 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 303/920-5070 CheI1 ;c-)Nordiern, I nc. SUIInKJ ElgIiIN ClSaINI SC0.p16SIS June 28, 1991 Vincent Pecc:olo 2044 Rancho Canada LaCanda CA 91011 Subject: Geotechnical Lot 1, Adams Colorado Job No. 4 336 91 Gentlemen: 5080 Road 154 Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81601 303 945.7458 303 945-2363 Facsimile Review of Building Plans, Proposed Peccolo Residence, Ranch Subdivision, Snowmass Village, Pitkin County, As requested by Graeme Means, Chen -Northern performed geotechnical review of the building and grading plans for the proposed residence at the subject site. Chen & Associates, Inc. (now known as Chen -Northern, Inc.) previously conducted a geologic reconnaissance on the Adams Ranch Subdivision submitting their findings in a report dated October 6, 1982, Job No. 24,806 and a preliminary subsoil study for the subdivision submitting their findings in a report dated August 25, 1983, Job No. 24,806A. This letter summarizes our review comments and recommendations with respect to tale building plans and our previous geotechnical information. We have been provided with sheets 1, 2 and 6 for prepared by Graeme Means, Architect dated June the proposed Peccolo residence 15, 1991. 21ie residence is proposed on Int 1 in the area of Hole No. 4 as shown on Fig. 1 of the 1983 preliminary subsoil study. 11 -ie residence will be fairly large,- approximately 100 feet long by 25 to 40 feet wide in plan size, and consist of one and two stories of wood frame construction over a partial basement level of concrete constriction. Ground floors will be slab -on -grade. The structure has been designed to be supported on spread footing foundations. A perimeter underdrain system around the basement level is proposed, but is not shown on the building plans. Grading at the site for the construction will not require deep cuts but will be fairly extensive due to the size of the building and the associated drives and parking. Cut depths will be a maximum of about 8 to 10 feet. The cuts will be retained in the building area by basement walls. Some areas adjacent the building will have concrete ar)d timber walls that retain cuts. Graded slopes are proposed as between 2 and 3 horizontal:) vertical. At upslope sides of the building positive surface drain for a minimum distance of 4 feet is noted on the plans. The proposed building plans appear generally consistent with our previous recoum)endations and the site conditions. Hole No. 4 located in the area of the residence during the preliminary subsoil study encountered medium dense silty sand, gravel and cobbles with no groundwater to the depth drilled, 15 feet. Spread footings should be designed for a maximum allowable soil bearing pressure of 3000 psf. Basement walls acting as retaining structures should be designed A member of the HEgroup of companies w.k Vincent Peccolo June 28, 1991 Page 2 to resist a lateral earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 45 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site soils. Cantilevered retaining structures separate from the residence or timber crib walls should be designed to resist an equivalent fluid lateral earth pressure of at least 40 pcf for backfill consisting of the on-site soils. The lateral pressure values are for flat backfill conditions. Underc3rains should be provided at the base of basement foundation walls and retaining structures to prevent hydrostatic pressure buildup and wetting of the building areas. The drain should consist of drain pipe place in the bottom of the wall backfill surrounded above the invert level with free draining granular material. A drain should be placed at each level of excavation and constructed similar to that shown on the attac -rod Fig. 1. At least 4 inches of the free draining gravel should be provided beneath the basement slabs. The site could be impacted by debris flaw hazard from the drainage approximately 150 to 200 feet north of the site. The building site was moved further from the drainage between the time of our geologic reconnaissance and the preliminary subsoil study. We believe the risk of the debris flaw impacting the site from the drainage to be low. We recommend positive surface drainage be provided away from the residence. At the uphill sides of the building a swale should -be constructed into the natural soils or a distance of at least 10 feet from the building due to the high precipitation at the site and typical deep snow pack. Foundation wall backfill should be compacted to_at.least go" standard proctor _ density at a moisture content near optimum. The wail backfill should be- campacted to at least 95% standard Proctor density near optimum moisture content.. in pavement and slab areas. The proposed cut slope grades appear adequate aryl should be revegetated or protected from erosion by other means. - - We should observe the foundation excavation to evaluate the exposed soils for foundation support at time of construction. If you have any questions or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Sincerely, cc: Graeme Means, Architect DAY/lr Chen PNorthern, I nc. const a nc, 6ug ncers awl scusd 5i; Ciii31-NOIf iII2Id, INC. 7L.pq David A. Y x= 1 5 2 2 2 Rev. SLP •� •` • •� if •: �'�`��- L:• -:;';;;� �.� a C"O_ Attachment cc: Graeme Means, Architect DAY/lr Chen PNorthern, I nc. const a nc, 6ug ncers awl scusd 5i; Foundation Wall Backfill compacted / to 90%-95% Standard /Proctor Dens i•ty Filter Fabric gg.0° ' opOoo-o a:o: ob, Drain gravel °d °� oa moo. • o. o° ° 2" maximum size. O'o o and < 2% pass i nc 0�0"0:0� 00.00: o° No. 200 sieve :a 0.0;:.0' •O o.o•'°. .° O:0 og9.OQg0- Floor Slab °:o• ° ° o o° o o, o0 00 0• o e o :00' o d°a0 flinimum ��O CO�°��� 0'0 0 g°:o:O�S,00Bc °° . 4" °:o° 00.•;'0. o: o O 3� .o.00•:Q.O 13. P. op.o. :•��8: oo�oOV•e;S Footing oo:O.p, Perforated--PVC- 4" diameter Pipe - -- 1% Minimum Slope to Gravity Out -let - Note: Minimum 2' depth of drain gravel. Miinimum 12" Below Top of Slab 14 336 91 1 Chen Northern,hic. I TYPICAL PERIMETER DRAIN DETAIL I Fig. I then and associates CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS 5080RD.154 GLENWOOD SPRINGS,COLORADO 81601 303/945.7458 August 25,1983 Subject: Preliminary Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Individual Septic Disposal System, Adams Ranch subdivi- sion, Snowmass Village, Pitkin County, Colorado. Job No. 24,806A Harland Adams c/o Design Workshop, Inc. 710 E. Durant Aspen, CO 81611 Attn: Mr. Curt Kulbertson Gentlemen: At your request, Chen and Associates, Inc. has completed a - subsoil study for preliminary foundation design and feasibility of infiltration type septic systems. Exploratory hole drilling for possible dcuestic well site location was also performed. The findings of our study is presented ii7 the following report. Chen and Associates, Inc., previously conducted geologic impact study of the site and presented our findings under Job No. 24,806 dated October 6, 1982. Proposed Construction: we understand the developn-vent will contain 2 residential building sites, Lot 1, located north of Snowmass Creek and Lot 2, located south of the creek. Specific design details of the residences have not been developed at this time. The residence locations will be within the general building site as shown on Figure 1. Construction is expected to be typical of residences in the area. Individual infiltra- tion type septic disposal systems are proposed if feasible. When detailed building construction and grading plans have been developed, we should be contacted for geotechnical review and re-evaluation of the reccnmendations presented herein. Site Conditions: The proposed building sites within Lots 1 and 2 are generally located on easterly sloping hillsides covered with native grass, weeds and other brush. The slope within building site 1 is generally moderate, about 20% with an elevation difference on the order of 20 feet across the general building area. Slope within building site 2 is relatively gentle with an elevation differential on the order of 5 feet across the general building area. Directly north of building site OFFICES: CASPER • COLORADO SPRINGS 0 DENVER 0 SALT LAKE CITY Harland Adams August 25, 1983 Page 2 2 is a fairly steep slope down to the lower valley bottom. As described in our previous geologic report, the proposed building sites are located within alluvial fan deposits on slopes less than 300. Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions within the 2 proposed buildings sites and within the southwestern portion of Lot 2 were evaluated by drilling 4 exploratory holes at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. A percolation hole was also drilled within each of the 2 proposed building envelopes and one hole was drilled within a possible domestic well site. Graphic logs of the subsurface profiles encountered are presented on Figure 2 with an explanation of the symbols shown on Figure 3. As indicated by the logs, the subsurface profiles consist predominantly of sands, gravels and cobbles within the northerly Lot 1 and predominantly of clay with shale fragments within the southerly Lot 2. The granular soils below an approximate 1 1/2 foot topsoil depth are generally medium dense and suitable for support of moderate foundation loadings with relatively low settlement potential. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a sample of the minus 1 1/2 inch fraction are presented on Figure 6.- No --free water was -encountered -to the-maximm depth drilled, 15 feet. Within Lot 2, stiff to very stiff -silty clays with scattered to frequent shale fragments were encountered below an approximate 2 foot- topsoil oottopsoil depth. Within the proposed building areas, the clays were encountered to the maximun depth drilled, 16 feet. Within the well site, Hole 5, the clays were encountered to -approximate depth 25 feet where coarse granular alluvium was encountered to the maximum depth drilled, 40 feet. Results of swell -consolidation tests performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the upper clays (Figures 4 and 5) indicate a relatively low volume change potential under conditions of loading and wetting. The clays sampled were generally mist to very mist and it has been our experience that clays similar to these may exhibit a swell potential when subjected to prolonged drying. The clays could be suitable for support of the expected foundation loadings with some potential for differential movement. Free water was encountered at relatively shallow depth within Lot 2, between about 8 1/2 to 12 1/2 feet in the building areas and at approximate depth 22 feet in the possible well site. Preliminary Building Design Reccninendations: Construction of the structures at the proposed building areas (hole locations 1 through 4) should be feasible based on geotechnical considerations. Foundations can consist of spread footings placed on the upper natural soils below the topsoil layer._ For preliminary design, a maximum bearing pressure of 3,000 psf can be assumed. Within Lot 2, expansive potential of the clays should be resisted by minimum dead load pressure between about 500 to 1,000 psf. Because of the swell potential., floor slabs place(3 on grade within Lot 2 should also be designed to allow for some heave without affecting the remaining structure. This typically consists t Harland Adams August 25, 1983 Page 3 of separating the floor slab from foundation bearing members and providing slip joints at the bottom of interior partition walls. Due to the moderately sloping terrain within Lot 1 and shallow ground water conditions encountered within Lot 2, grading for the building construction should be kept as shallow as possible. Foundation and floor levels should be stepped to maintain maximum cut depth to on the order of 8 to 10 feet or less. In general, we do not recnd building construction below free ground water level. Because of the shallow ground water and potential for perched water development during spring runoff, all below grade construction should be protected from wetting by an underdrain system. We anticipate underdrains consisting of a perforated pipe embedded in free draining gravel placed around the perimeter of the structure and at the bottom of each excavation level and sloped to suitable gravity outlet can be used. The above reccnmendations are preliminary in nature. We recommend additional subsoil study be performed when specific building plans have been developed. Assuming the structures are located in the areas evaluated for this study and structures are designed in accordance with the above guidelines, we anticipate observation of the excavation at time of construction should be adequate. Percolation Test Results: One percolation test was performed within each of the proposed building sites on Lots 1 and 2. Results of the percolation tests are presented on the attached Table II. As indicated by the results, --use of conventional infiltration type septic systems should be feasible. Due to the relatively shallow ground water con- ditions encountered within Lot 2, the infiltration bed should be kept as shallow as possible. When specific infiltration bed locations have been determined,_ additional profile holes and percolation testing should be performed for final sizing. Limitation: This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in this area for use by the client for design purposes. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory holes drilled at the locations indicated on the exploratory hole plan. The nature and extent of variations between the exploratory holes may not become evident until excavation is performed. If during construc- tion, existing fill, soil, rock and water conditions appear to be different frcm those described herein, this office should be advised at once so re-evaluation of the reccsimendations may be made. We recomend on --site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata by a representative of the soil engineer. Very truly yours, CHEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. SLP/dc By cc: Patrick & Lockhead Steven L. Pawlak, P.L. Enartec - Scott Fifer Harland Adams LEGEND: ® Topsoil, organic, silty clay, soft. Clay (CL) silty, low to medium plasticity with shale fragments, stiff to very © stiff, moist to wet with depth, brown to gray. Sand, Gravel & Cobbles (SM -GM) silty, scattered boulders, subangular to rounded IV'slrock, medium dense, slightly moist, reddish brown. o Sand and Gravel (GM -GP), stream bed type deposits with cobbles and possible boulders, dense, wet, brown. Undisturbed Drive Sample; The symbol 19/12 indicates that 19 blows of a 140 lb. hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the sampler 12 inches. Standard Penetration Test AST14 D1586 0,4 Depth to water level and number of days after drilling measurement was made. —�– Depth at which test hole caved when checked on August -16, 1983. NOTES: 1) Test holes were drilled on August 12,-1983 with a 4 -inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2) Tests holes were field located by representative of Design Workshop, Inc. at the time of our site visit. 3) Elevations of test holes were obtained by interpolation between contours on the plan provided. 4) The test hole locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. S) The lines between materials shown on the test hole logs represent the approxi- mate boundaries between material types and the transitions may be gradual. 6) hater level readings shown on the logs were made at the time and under conditions indicated. Fluctuations in the water level may occur with time. No free water was encountered in Hole A, Perc. hole 1 and 2. 7) WC = Eater Content (%) DD = Dry Density (pcf) _ -200 = Percent Passing No. 200 Sieve LL = Liquid Limit (o) PI = Plasticity Index (%) LEGEND $ NOTES OF EXPLORATORY 2-1 , S06A Chen and associates, inc. HOLES 0 3 4 I .i. r� chen and associates, ins. 3 4 U.1 -- i.v_ - -_ ._ APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf moisture Content = 16.4 percent Dry Unit Weight = 117.6 pcf Sample of: clay with shal-e fragments _- From: Hole 1 at 10 feet I N i4o e - t upon wetti g n l 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf /-r1K1c-rl1 TCCT Or:Qj 11 TC Fin 4 Moisture Content = 16.6 percent Dry Unit Aught = 117.7 pcf Sample of: Clay with shale fragments From: Hole 1 at 5 feet N 1v t nt upo we ti g. - Jnr 3 4 U.1 -- i.v_ - -_ ._ APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf moisture Content = 16.4 percent Dry Unit Weight = 117.6 pcf Sample of: clay with shal-e fragments _- From: Hole 1 at 10 feet I N i4o e - t upon wetti g n l 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf /-r1K1c-rl1 TCCT Or:Qj 11 TC Fin 4 I r_ 0 1 V) 0 sA 0 2 U 3 4 5 6 3 4 k then and associates, in 0.1 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf Moisture Content = 12.8 percent Dry Unit Weight = 120.6 pcf Sample of: clay with shale fragments From: Hole 2 at 3 feet IiH� I No mov ment uP n w tt E. p p e si flr� n underco due t we tst ti n g. 1 i I in 0.1 1.0 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf U 1 i u APPLIED PRESIURE — kst 014 806A - .,ri i r, r*\r.ir/111i 1r1\ATi1__�ni _r _r_ nr- cli ii Tc 5 Moisture Content = 17.4 percent Dry Unit Weight = 116.4 pcf Sample of: Clay with shale fragments From: }sole 3 at 9 feet IiH� I E. p p e si flr� n underco due t we tst ti n g. 1 I in U 1 i u APPLIED PRESIURE — kst 014 806A - .,ri i r, r*\r.ir/111i 1r1\ATi1__�ni _r _r_ nr- cli ii Tc 5 CHEN AND ASSOCIATES Consulting Soil and Foundation Enpin*ws _ GRAVEL SG /0 SAND 37 /0 SILT AND CLAY I py /0 LIQUID LIMIT ,7 C Q%p PLASTICITY INDEX r/0 SAMPLE Or sandy gravel rROM Hole 4 at 4 feet 1 GRAVEL % SAND JD -3I LT AND CLAY LIQUID LIMIT %p PLASTICITY INDEX SAMPLE OF FROM J W cc Q 2 D � oz �Zo> - r I U) C/) Li w r~ � a U } O _ � ll i LU m - _ t] Q O 7 m Q Q z J LTLJ .�L. LL U Q Q 2 D � oz �Zo> - LJ N � W LJ 1 ll i Qv I r I I Q u J W - > O I u i 1 1 I z N I a z 0) OJ � 00 �- N Z ° a O U •--1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 I Z ~ W O W W r o � V7 O Lf) M u7 rt Q r--1 u O J W J CL 7 a W 0 mar► TATAU II Job No. 24,806A PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS WATER DEPTH WATE!" DEP'T'H HOLE HOLE LENGTH OF AT START AT END DROP IN AVERAGE NO. DEPTH INTERVAL GF INTERVAL OF INTERVAL WATER LEVEL PERCOLATION RATE (In.) (Min.) (Inches) (IrncheS) (Inches) (rain./Inch.) 1 84 6S S6 52 4 50 S2 50.S 1.5 SO S0.5 49 1.5 33 2 60 10 26 17 9 17 13 4 15 13 10.5 2.5 10.5 7.5 3 7.S- - - 4.5__-- - 3 _ S 4 ■ N V F z r IrIK `s FT .n o "' cr, `s FT .n o r I d d o "' cr, I d d O IJ W N N C`! O co _ U C) W G. n� M n N c0 rf N o. . p u r W y 11 I I Ln C) orJ r- . -i O N O M \ \ U 00 \ > > \ \ \ O II W Ln - ---------- - U \0 N .-y II .-r II II O II II .--� II II - _ - cn I ^ I a \0 Ln z= C7 N U o0 O II ,n o 0 1' N N �i i ;;3 C-) 0 0 o, c a D rt e .'N 4 s i 0 V 1 yr0 \\ cn C -)y �o _➢ Gni O z \` CL — \\ p O CO O x Ln ZZ •' � n w n I \ ro O (D d (D O \ \ i < CD_ N \ ro n O ro I n C" O n ro r+ j Q' � r rJ � ONa 1-0 Vi N O co �. N Co r+ 0 N 0 cr 0 (J m 0 rn r+ 0 r� N O T < v ro a �z �m MI -� O D � � n b x O I n O O d I O D Z S C OC I O D LA I r Z ron. 0 �. z D �a ^ a m -< 0 M r m