HomeMy WebLinkAbout03486ill .~''j _f . ----~
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT Permit N: 34R6
l
109 8th Street Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 11801
· Phone (303) 945-8212
, INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT
v
PROPERTY ' ;
; ~ Owner'1Nem£!tJN5u!..i L/llll)'/-SfAOPresentAddressfuX55t 1-),C.I..) CO
~ System Location o'i I\ to \.\ i; t-\Tu ~It U:ii. )~1 {l ,:iB?c,, .Uf\1 F (b
AUHIOr's Psrcel No.
This does not conotltute
a building or use permit.
Phone 9 '/7 -1/3°/
; J fl1-30 I -03-0(>;)._
, Legal Description of Asa8110r's Parcel No. _________ _.:;__;:_...:C?-'-----------,------------
~ SYSTEM DESIGN ~ ~5<A},(J ·. 'M-.}_
' ,;
' ' . ' '
_____ Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) ______ ,Other
#> ri~ tt.r. I~ Percolation Rate (minutes/Inch) Number of Bedrooms (or other) -==~'----
Required Absorption Area -See Atteched
Special Setback Requirements:
Date ____________ Inspector _________________________ _
d r • -FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION AND APPROVAL (as installed) . ' ~ Call for Inspection (24 hours notice) Before Covering Installation
!i System Installer _____________________________________ _
Septic Tank Capaclty_~.e_'""-'O"'---------------------------------
Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name _,_c_.rrf""""''--"E"'L"'-'..mJ.w.LJb...._ _____________________ _
l ' ,.
l . '
' .
;
•
.,
-;
'
i
t ~ • t
Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface ---/-4.:..::L..------------------------
Absorption Araa 30eq ~x?)LLt-clf ct(1!at8Us ,,..) tt11Jc(tE«,. Wl7# 61SMk<-BE.N:v~ ~ i •• ,' t
! t
' ; , .
Absorption Area Type and/or Manufacturer or Trade Name _______________________ _
Adequate compliance with County and Stele ragulatlona/raqulrements ___ .._x_.l."""'7'---------------
0ther ~ =(
Date 5'-3D-0 / Inspector __ _.,~=""~'--"4-ir/J!l"""'""-~""'-"'"='-~---~""-=-~"'"""--------~
RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CONSTRUCTION SITE
-CONDmONS:
1. All lnotallation mull comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sew-Disposal Systems Chapter
25, Article 10 C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984.
2. Thia permit Is valid only for connection to structures which have fully complied wHh County zoning and building requlremsnta. Con-
nactlon to or use with anydwelllngorotructuraa not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a violation or a
requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit.
3. Airy peraon who constructs, alters, orlnotalls an Individual -.ge disposal system In a manner which Involves a knowing and material
vmtatlon from the termo or apeclflcations contained In the appUcatlon of permit commits a Clasa I, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine-I
months In jail or both). ·
M1ile ·APPLICANT Yellow· DEPARTMENT
.
"
• •
,' {
' ;
' INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION
l. -r >"1. I f/IJ./ /7j, c /tJ!l l 5 VA,/ OWNER Jl?S q:J If
ADDRESS .So¥ SS-,'/ 4vt!J~ Co J'lt,:J.P PHONE 120 -9 'fC, -11.i 2
CONTRACTOR ____ ~~->-L&-.L....-.1.1-~(};..ucv~tv~,~-,Lf _____________ _
ADDRESS D 3 L/.< /"? l?-t-d/N ilO
PERMIT REQUEST FOR ( )} NEW INSTALLATION ( ) ALTERATION ( )REPAIR
Attach separate sheets or report showing entire area with respect to surrounding areas, topography of area, habitable
building, location of potable water wells, soil percolation test holes, soil profiles in test holes (See page 4).
LOCATION OF PROPOSED FACILITY: 7,gq;}
Near what City ofTown._ ...... G.....,,.L_,./?W=...,'d"""'""~"">.t'o<------------'S""ize~o..._f_.,,L""ot.___.k,..___,_/T.L-"'c""A-"--",f......,.J_
Lo+ 9-@r<;k):Oi+ Vie~
< ) TRANS7nMT<iJsE +/cQ'f-1....utl.r-,-iQ
Legal Description or Address ~ J f-7 -3 ..> l ~ o 12 .l.
WASTES TYPE: (~DWELLING
( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON-DOMESTIC WASTES
( )OTHER-DESCRIBE _______________ _
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE:_-l-'fi._.1_=-"'5L.., (Jg..;.¢~'"""',.,_~.,_&"""""'==· ---------------
Number ofBedrooms ____ 3=--..-----------Number of Persons------
<)<> Dishwasher (y) Garbage Grinder (~ Automatic Washer
SQURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (><) WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK
If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier: ____ ~/>!_. _________ _
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: __ ....p.1.~--------
Was an effort made to connect to the Community System? ___ -+ILL'------------
A site plan is required to be submitted that indicates the following MINIMUM distances:
Leach Field to Well: I 00 feet
Septic Tank to Well: 50 feet
Leach Field to Irrigation Ditches, Stream or Water Course: 50 feet
Septic System to Property Lines: I 0 feet
YOUR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT WILL NOT BE ISSUED WITHOUT
A SITE PLAN. f b iJ jJ J.... R 1./)
GROUND CONDfuONS:
Depth to first Ground Water Table ______________________ _
Percent Ground Slope __________________________ _
2
, ;
TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED:
. (";) SEPTIC TANK ( ) AERATION PLANT ( ) VAULT
( ) VAULT PRIVY ( ) COMPOSTING TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, POT ABLE USE
( ) PITPRIVY ( ) INCINERATION TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, OTHER USE
( ) CHEMICAL TOILET ( ) OTHER -DESCRIBE
FINAL DISPOSAL BY:
cy> ABSORPTION TRENCH, BED OR PIT ( ) EV APOTRANSPIRATION
( ) UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL ( ) SAND FILTER
( ) ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL ( ) WASTEWATER POND
( ) OTHER -DESCRIBE
WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE?
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS: {To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer, if the Engineer does the
Percolation Test) 56~ /hrlftlhqJ
Minutes. _ _,,_2-_v _ _,per inch in hole No. 1 Minutes _47 ___ _,per inch in hole NO. 3
Minutes / b per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes ______ per inch in hole NO. _
Name, address and telephone of RPE who made soil absorption tests: tfJ? Ge o+-e ch
Name, address and telephone ofRPE responsible for design of the system:_--"='c.:..c..""""-"".,:;,_____,,~""--'"-"'----
1 ') 9 9 a !J Io 4 fe /. fi-,,./ '4 1JJ(j ~ 9 !/S: -3-7 J. I
Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the application is conditional upon such further mandatory and
additional tests and reports as may be required by the local health department to be made and furnished by the applicant
or by the local health department for purposed of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of the permit is
subject to such terms and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations made,
information and reports submitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant are or will be represented to
be true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and are designed to be relied on by the local department of
health in evaluating the same for purposes of issuing the permit applied for herein. I further understand that any
fulsification or misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any permit granted based
upoo~'j;'W\~~;t/~by~
Signed ~L CL Date 3-1 t/-0 /
PLE£RAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!!
3
. '
July IO, 2000
C.tf.191.F·e/
Lanny and Susan @ulun
P.O. Box 554
Avon, Colorado 81620
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotecboical, Inc.
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-945-7988
Fax: 970-945-8454
bpgeo@bpgeotech.com
Job No. 100 476
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed
Residence, Parcel 2, Crystal Light Subdivision, Garfield County,
Colorado
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Carlton:
As requested, Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study and
percolation test for foundation and septic disposal designs at the subject site. The study
was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services
to you dated June 5, 2000. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the
proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this
report. Evaluation of potential geologic hazard impacts on the site are beyond the scope
of this study.
Proposed Construction: The proposed residence will be a single story wood frame
structure with a partial basement level located in the area of exploratory Pits 1 and 2 as
shown on Fig. I. Ground floors are proposed to be slab-on-grade. Cut depths are
expected to range between about 3 to 8 feet. Foundation loadings for this type of
construction are assumed to be relatively light and typical of the proposed type of
construction. The septic disposal system is proposed to be located northwest of the
residence.
If building conditions or foundation loadings are significantly different from those
described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in
this report.
Site Conditions: The parcel is vacant and located off of County Road 119 in Spring
Valley. The ground surface in the building area appears natural and slopes strongly
down to the northwest. There are several apparently abandoned irrigation ditches on
the property that were dry at the time of our field work. The lot is vegetated with grass
and weeds with some sagebrush along the ditches.
' t t
Lanny and Susan Carlton
July 10, 2000
Page2
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by
excavating two exploratory pits in the building area and one profile pit in the septic
disposal area at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The logs of the pits are
presented on Fig. 2~ The subsoils encountered, below about 11h to 2 feet of topsoil,
consist of stiff silty clay underlain basalt gravel, cobbles and boulders in a stiff
calcareous sandy silty clay matrix at depths from 3 to 5 feet. Digging in the cemented
basalt rocks with a backhoe was difficult and refusal was encountered in the pits a
depths from 5 to 7 feet. Results of swell-consolidation testing performed on relatively
undisturbed samples of the silty clay, presented on Figs. 3 and 4, indicate low
compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading and a moderate to
high compressibility when loaded after wetting. One sample showed a minor swell
potential and the other one showed moderate collapse potential. Results of a gradation
analysis performed on a sample of the clay and gravel soils (minus 5 inch fraction)
obtained from the site are presented on Fig. 5. No free water was observed in the pits
at the time of excavation and the soils were slightly moist.
Foundation Recommendations: Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the
exploratory pits and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend spread
footings placed on the undisturbed natural soil designed for an allowable soil bearing
pressure of 1,500 psf for support of the proposed residence. The upper soils generally
tend to compress after wetting and there could be some post-construction foundation
settlement if the bearing soils become wetted. Precautions should be taken to prevent
wetting of the bearing soils. Extending the footings doWll to the basalt rocks should also
help limit settlement potential. Footings should be a minimum width of 20 inches for
continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. All topsoil and loose or disturbed soils
encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excavation should be removed
and the footing bearing level extended down to the undisturbed natural soils. The
footing subgrade should then be moistened and compacted. Voids created by rock
removal should be backfilled with concrete or with compacted structural fill. Exterior
footings should be provided with adequate cover above their bearing elevations for frost
protection. Placement of footings at least 36 inches below the exterior grade is typically
used in this area. Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to
span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 14 feet.
Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be designed to resist a lateral
earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for the on-site
soil excluding topsoil and oversized rocks as backfill.
H-P GEOTECH .
' l
Lanny and Susan Carlton
July 10, 2000
Page 3
Floor Slabs: The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support
lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. There could be some settlement/heave if the
subgrade becomes wetted. To reduce the effects of some differential movement, floor
slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints
which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used
to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and
slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the
intended slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of free-draining gravel should be placed
beneath· basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of
minus 2 inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2 %
passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 % of
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill
can consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rocks.
Underdrain System: Although free water was not encountered during our exploration,
it has been our experience in the area and where clay soils are present that local perched
groundwater can develop during times of heavy precipitation or seasonal runoff.
Frozen ground during spring runoff can also create a perched condition. We
recommend below-grade construction, such as retaining walls and basement areas, be
protected from wetting and hydrostatic pressure buildup by an underdrain system.
The drains should consist of drainpipe placed in the bottom of the wall backfill
surrounded above the invert level with free-draining granular material. The drain
should be placed at each level of excavation and at least 1 foot below lowest adjacent
finish grade and sloped at a minimum 1 % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining
granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2 % passing the
No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of
2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 11h feet deep. An impervious
membrane such as 20 mil PVC should be placed beneath the drain gravel in a trough
shape and attached to the foundation wall with mastic to prevent wetting of the bearing
soils. This item in not as important for bearing on the basalt gravel soils.
Surface Drainage: Positive surface drainage is an important aspect of the project to
prevent wetting of the bearing soils. 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
H-P GEOTECH
Lanny and Susan Carlton
July 10, 2000
Page4
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas. ,
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We
reconunend 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 pavement
and walkway areas.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all backfill.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation, such as sod, should
be located at least 5 feet from the building,
Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on June 20, 2000 to evaluate the
feasibility of an infiltration septic disposal system at the site. One profile pit and three
percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Fig. 1. The test holes (nominal 12
inch diameter by 12 inch deep) were hand dug at the bottom of shallow backhoe pits
and were soaked with water one day prior to testing. The soils exposed in the
percolation holes are similar to those exposed in the Profile Pit shown on Fig. 2 and
consist of sandy silty clay overlying basalt gravel, cobbles and boulders in a sandy silty
clay matrix. The percolation test results, presented in Table II, indicate average
percolation rates from about 9 to 20 minutes per inch. The percolation tests were in the
underlying basalt soils. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the
percolation test results, the tested area should be suitable for a conventional infiltration
septic disposal system. We recommend the infiltration area be oversized due to the
variable percolation rates.
Limitations: This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no
warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted
in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pits excavated at the
locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in
the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface
conditions identified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions
may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered
during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be
H-P GEOTECH ,
' '
Lanny and Susan Carlton
July 10, 2000
Page 5
notified at once so 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.
If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please let us know.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Pawlak, P.E.
DAY/ksm
attachments
, INC.
H-P GEOTEC!i
APPROXIMA lE SCALE
1· = 150'
z )
Legend
• Exp I oatory Pit
!;:,. Percolation Test Hole
/ r
I
I
Parcel 3
.----------:---...,
I I
I _J..
I --I ,..;. .,.. I
I --~1 I - -f..'\A~ I --~ ~,..s --r I / -\)"'l\u - -I
I I r,~ss "~u ---I
I/ "c --I' ,-I
~I I I
-' I I
1
1 / PARCEL 2 I ,, I ~ I
• PIT 1
p 1
~
PROFlLE P 2
PIT • !;:,.
PIT 2 •
p 3
!;:,.
APPROXIMAlE
DRAINAGE
OITCH
I
-------..J
HEATHER LANE
100 476 HEPWORTH -PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOCA llON OF EXP LORA TORY PITS
AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES
Fig. 1
. ~ ..
PIT 1
ELEV. = 100'
0
5
PIT 2
ELEV. = 91'
PROFILE PIT
ELEV. = 86'
10
LE GENO:
TOPSOIL; organic silty clay, slightly moist, dork brown.
CLAY (CL); silty, slightly sandy ta sandy, stiff, slightly moist, light brown and colcoreous
at Pit 1 and prpflle pit, dork brown at Pit 2.
0
5
10
~
D
~
~
GRAVEL AND CLAY (GC-CL); with basalt cobbles and boulders, silty, sandy, dense/stiff, slightly
moist, light brown, calcareous.
2• Diameter hand driven liner sample.
~-;
~-.J Disturbed bulk sample.
T Backhoe refusal.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory pits were excavated on June 19, 2000 with a backhoe.
2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features
on the site pion provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory pits were measured by instrument level and refer to ground surface
of Pit 1 equal to 100'. Pits logs are drawn ta depth.
4. The exploratory pit locotions and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree
lmplled by the method used.
5. The llnes between materials shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate
boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered In the pits ct the time of excavating.
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
100 476 HEPWORTH -PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS Fig. 2
;;
" ....
Moisture Content = 12.7 percent
Dry Density = 86 pct
Sample of: Slightly Sandy Silty Cloy
From: Pit 1 ot 4 feet
0
1
v~ '-Compression
upon
2 wetting
te
c:
0 3 ·;;
" ..
~ a. '\ E 4 0
(.) \ 5
6 \
1
7 \
8 \
9
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
100 476 HEPWORTH -PAWLAK SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig •. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, INC. .
Moisture Content = 11.6 percent
Dry Density = 97 pcf
Sample of: Sondy Silty Clay
From: Pit 2 at 3 1 /2 feet
Expansion
upon
0 wetting_
'r-!>I ~ t( '\. c: 1 .2 '\ .,
c:
D
ll.
)( 2 w
\ I ..
c:
0 3 ·u; .,
\ .. ....
ll.
E 4 0
0
5 \
6
7
0.1 1.0 10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE -ksf
100 476 HEPWORTH -PAWLAK SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
SIM ANAL 'ISIS _ ........
U.S. STAM>Nlll SERIES I QDR -DPENINGS
24 ... 7Hlt
45 ..._ 15 lillL lct MIN.11 WIN. 4 MIL 1 lilfrl. PIO ftCIG fl50 f.10 fl& f8
11111
,. •trvnt•• , 1tr :r .... r 0
..
..
"'
l!l z
Vi
..
VJ <
0..
I-SJ z w u
"' w
0.. ..
JD
..
10
• .... ....
100 476
. Dal .OOI .... .llS7 .... • 1!111 .... ..... 1,11 .... ..., . l.lu.s 11.0 ....
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MIWMETERS
CLAY lO Sl.T I ""
GRAVEL 21 % SAND
LIQUID LIMIT "
SAMPLE OF: Sandy Silty Clay with
Cobbles
HEPWORTH -PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.
I lie •cowl M .,Iii @!!I
16 " SILT AND CLAY
PLASTICITY INDEX "
Gravel and FROM: Pit 1 at 6 to 7
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
10
..
JD
0 .. w z
~ w
"'
SJ I-z w u
"' w
0.. ..
70
..
..
100
71.2 , .. ...
117
I ......
63 "
feet
Fig. 5
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I JOB NO. 100 476
SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RES UL TS
SAMPLE LOCATION NATURAL NATURAL GRADATION PERCENT ATTfRBERG LIMITS UNCONANED
PIT DEPTH MOtSTUAE ORV GRAVEL SANO PASSING LIQUID PLASTIC COMPRESSIVE SOILOA
l,..tl CONTENT DENSITY '"' '"' N0.200 LIMIT INDEX STR~NGTH BEDROCK TYPE
"" I pell SIEVE '"' '"' IPSFI
1 4 12.7 86 Slightly Sandy Silty Clay
7 12.8 80 Slightly Sandy Silty Clay
6-7 21 16 63 Sandy Silty Clay with
Gravel and Cobbles
2 2 9.9 107 91 Slightly Sandy Silty Clay
3% 11.6 97 Sandy Silty Clay
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE II
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 100 476
HOLE NO. HOLE OEPTH LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH DROP IN AVERAGE
(INCHES> INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF WATER PERCOLATION
!MIN) INTERVAL INTERVAL LEVEL RATE
(INCHES) (INCHES I {INCHES) IMIN./INCHI
P·1 50 15 9 y, 8 y, 1
8 y, 7 y, 1
7 y, 6 ¥· %
6% 6 %
6 5 l4 %
5 l4 4 y, % 20
P·2 58 15 10 9 1
9 7 y, 1 y,
7 y, 6 y, 1
6 y, 5 y, 1
5 y, 4 y, 1
4 y, 3% % 16
p.3 57 15 9 6% 2 l4
water added 9% 7 y, 2 l4
7 y, 5 y, 2
watar added
9 7 2
7 5 l4 1 %
9
5 l4 3% 1 y,
Note: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on June
19, 2000. The percolation tests were conducted on June 2000, by Hepworth -Pawlak
Geotechnical. The average rates were determined from the last three readings of each
test.
r
' ~!ID@@~ ~'jj' 0 [QC l-\i!
"if~ § [i'j(B};'
\
\ \
\,·,.,,,,,
';.'<-''i
\ \
\ \
\ '
.,.,,.
,,~ J ' '
'
N.c,,"'f'1>1E. ~.._
~A(..Kp(t1 .. L
l-J4.~t-1e:O C.,IZ.~L
,....lLL
1 INF°IL..,-~A.Tot.'
C.t.\A.l'•fe>e.R,"::I -<:>E.T
"-E,VE.l.--(:./;..p bO"'fH
E)\JOt:>
Owner Name/Address
ount CARLSON, JOSEPH L & SUSAN M
N
PO BOX554 ~ea"'r,......-;oi<1<=st"'r1<=ct.-1--1AvoN co 81620
2001 005
•
MH Space Seq
'Owner Location 'Map No
0 Mame 0 Taxltems D Protest (I) [><] CAMA (A)
D Situs 0 Pre/Sue [] MoblleAut [] Personal (P
D Mobile D Remarks [l Value D OllandGas
D Tract D TaxSale
[j D Recording 0 Condo [j SpcAsm State Asd
D Block U Mines [J Control D
LAND 90,000
r-~----~------+------------
IMPS 0
26,100 0 0
TOTAL
0 0
D Sales 0 Sibling [J History Queries
D Misc( D Elags D PPCerlllr [NAME
Current Year Prior Version TaxTrx
Prior Year Ne(x)t Version Abatement
Next Year Characteristics Property Card
Inquiry Only Clear Exit