HomeMy WebLinkAbout03662·<::;~--L .. · .. '. ~ 'l(i-37o"r:.· ...
•· · ' <' .. udr~ •' ~ . . ' ... 07 ~ .. -
. ·)'
GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND SANITATION DEPARTMENT
109 8th Street Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81801
Phone (303) 945·8212
Permit N~ 3662 f
I A88easor's Parcel No.
. ......_ ii .... ,·-t., .......
~ ..
This does not constitute
a building or use permit. ., : . IND~VIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL l'ERMIT
! PROPl!RTY
: Owner's Name V; bfv3 Q, 0 rclo" . • l System Location k3b6 CR..
Q./o 3'-oW.QiV\ CJtt/e b.rl1.Ale1<w 4 '1 I
Present Address_. _____________ Phone '::t VS"-'Zro )..\.~
Carloo.-.J{.t!e G>Ptb~3
r Legal Description of Assessor's Parcel No. ----~·-~L_o_+_. --' -~--3~;{-c__:.A._i_M_l_:e_"@-=.4e=-_sJx(l_:_::_:....__' ----
/CJO
~ .
~
• SYSTEM DESIGN
Septic Tank Capacity (gallon) ______ Other
<.-l'i-Ot.iif.. J_ M'
Percolation Rate (minutes/inch) ?gl~r hJ ~;JP)' 3 f {S . ~ "'f'
Required Absorption Area • See Attached ?'73 /JI t-, · -6r.J2.-;:..;(-"".;:?;} t,.,....,,~ \
"/11-~ "'-£<-,,( ::-,;i.I,,, ~ "3' x j) )
&-\. 3-0 ~ ( 2 K'&'
IC'oD .;11
Special Setback Requirements:
Date _j-·'7-DL I Inspector ,(}taL.//"?l..R==q £
·'lo~ ·'•
FINAL SYSTEM INSPECTION' .. NP APPROVAL (as Installed)
q,i./ t:b f<>cr< l " .. ~t-. F•ec<.. 0
I
;
• ' l
l
( Call for lnspe"Ction (24 hours notlc~)·Belore Covering Installation
If\ ffa,Q ltJf"\ ). 5 p' ':>
I" {J,~o C&° ('<''-> ":fJI..(,, . +
•
'
l
' I
!
·;
'
' ' /~
!
•
System 1nstaller __________________________ '.3_s_-_..f<'_!. __ 2_x_~"-----
Septic Tank Capaclty_/_~~-"-o ________________________________ _
~~ Septic Tank Manufacturer or Trade Name --"~"""'P"-"="-------------------------
I
I
t
I Septic Tank Access within 8" of surface --,~='---------------------------
Absorption Area-",_..."-------------------------------------
Absorption Area Type and/or Manufacturer or Trade Nari)~ ad .. 1;.:J~ ,{>
/
Adequate comi)llance with County and State regulations/requlrements~y.ea-.,.,,.='-----------------
Other __ _, _________________ __,,~...,-~~..---------------f.
RETAIN WITH RECEIPT RECORDS AT CON
•CONDITIONS: {
1. All Installation must comply with all requirements of the Colorado State Board of Health Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Chapter /
25, Article 10 C.R.S. 1973, Revised 1984.
2. This perm'it is valid" only for connection to structures which have fully complied with County zoning and building requirements. Con-iii
nection to or use with any dwelling or structures not approved by the Building and Zoning office shall automatically be a violation or a 1:
requirement of the permit and cause for both legal action and revocation of the permit.
3. Any person who constructs, alters, or Installs an Individual sewage disposal system In a manner which Involves a knowing and m•ttrlal j
variation from the terms or specifications contained In the application of permit commits a Class I, Petty Offense ($500.00 fine-6 j·'
months In jail or both). •
White. APPLICANT Yellow. DEPARTMENT
------------------------------ - - - - - - -
..
INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM APPLICATION
OWNER Gordon Viberg
ADDRESS c/o 320 Main Street #203, CarbondaffioNE 963-0566
CONTRACTOR DM Neuman Construction Co.
ADDRESS PO Box 2317, Glenwood Spgs CO PHONE 945-7502
PERMIT REQUEST FOR (x) NEW INSTALLATION ( ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR
Attach separate sheets or repo1t 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: COUNTY_G_a_r_f_i_e_l_d ______ _
Near what City or Town Carbondale (Missouri Hts, Areasize of Lot 8. 578 acres
Legal Desc1iption or Address Lot 1, West Rimledge Subdivision Cf2-f<SU
WAS TES TYPE: ( x) DWELLING ( ) TRANSIENT USE
( ) COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL ( ) NON-DOMESTIC WASTES
( ) OTHER-DESCRIBE ________________ _
BUILDING OR SERVICE TYPE: Single Family,tResidence
Number of Bedrooms. _ _,,_ _______________ Number of Persons._,._4=-6.,__ ___ _
( x) Garbage Grinder ( x) Automatic Washer (;x: ) Dishwasher
SOURCE AND TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: ( xl WELL ( ) SPRING ( ) STREAM OR CREEK
Give depth of all wells within 180 feet of system: ____________________ _
If supplied by Community Water, give name of supplier __________________ _
GROUND CONDITIONS:
Depth to bedrock: none encountered
Depth to first Ground Water Table __ n~o~t_e~n~c~o~u~n_t_e_r_e_d _________________ _
Percent Ground Slope 8%/building envelope: 4%/building site
DISTANCE TO NEAREST COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM: _______________ _
Was an effort made to connect to community system? N/A ( ) YES ( ) NO
TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PROPOSED:
(x ) SEPTIC TANK ( ) AERATION PLANT ( ) VAULT
( ) VAULT PRIVY ( ) COMPOSTING TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, POTABLE USE
( ) PIT PRIVY ( ) INCINERATION TOILET ( ) RECYCLING, OTHER USE
( ) CHEMICAL TOILET ( ) OTHER-DESCRIBE. _____________ _
FINAL DISPOSAL BY:
(x ) ABSORPTION TRENCH, BED OR PIT
( ) UNDERGROUND DISPERSAL
( ) ABOVE GROUND DISPERSAL
( )
( )
( )
EVAPOTRANSPIRA TION
SAND FILTER
WASTEWATER POND
(. ) OTHER-DESCRIBE. ________________________ _
WILL EFFLUENT BE DISCHARGED DIRECTLY INTO WATERS OF THE STATE?_N_o ____ _
2
' PER.COl:A'1'10N TEST RESULTS: (To be completed by Registered Professional Engineer)
Minutes _____ per inch in hole No. I Minutes _______ per inch in hole No. 3
Minutes per inch in hole No. 2 Minutes per inch in hole No. __ _
Name, address and telephone ofRPE who made soil absorption tests: ________________ _
Name, address and telephone ofRPE responsible for design of the system: _______________ _
Applicant acknowledges that the completeness of the application is conditional upon such further mandatory and
additional tests and repmts as may be required by the local health department to be made and furnished by the
applicant or by the local health department for purposes of the evaluation of the application; and the issuance of the
pennit is subject to such tenns and conditions as deemed necessary to insure compliance with rules and regulations
adopted under Article I 0, Title 25, C.R.S. 1973, as amended. l11e undersigned hereby certifies that all statements
made, infonnation and reports submitted herewith and required to be submitted by the applicant are or will be
represented to be trne and conect to the best of my knowledge and belief and are designed to be relied on by the
local depa11ment of health in evaluating the same for puqioses of issuing the pennit applied for herein. I further
understand that any falsification or misrepresentation may result in the denial of the application or revocation of any
sed pon said application and in legal action for perjury as provided by law.
3-21-02 Date. _______________ _
PLEASE DRAW AN ACCURATE MAP TO YOUR PROPERTY!!
3
..
~tech
September 9. 1999
Gordon Viberg
2929 Briar Park Drive, Suite 405
Houston, Texas 77042
Hc1>''·orth·P:t\\luk c; ..... 1tL·chnkal. Inc.
S0.20 ('ountv ltond IS-I
<:lcn\\ood Sprinus. <:olnrndo 81'101
Phone: 970.9-'"~· 7 1)88
Fax: 970-9.4.5·/i-lS-I
hpgl:'o (f\l hp~cot~ch.l·un1
Job No. 199 625-1
Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design and Percolation Test, Proposed
Residence. Lot I. West Rim!edge Subdivision. West of 100 Road,
Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Viberg:
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 August 19, 1999. The data obtained and our reconunendations based on
the proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this
report. Hepworth -Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., previously observed the geologic
conditions for the subdivision and presented our findings in a letter dated September 26,
1997. Job No. 197 587.
Proposed Construction: At the time of our study. design plans for the residence had
not been developed. We understand that the results of this study will be used in
'-'Onsideration of property purchase. We assume the proposed residence will be a two
story structure located in the area of Pit l shown on Fig. I. Ground tloors will likely
he structural over crawlspace. Cut depths are expected to range between about 4 to 6
feet. Foundation loadings for this type of construction cue assumed to be re!ati'.T!\' !i~ht
and typical of the proposed type of construction. The septi'-' disposal system is
proposed to he located ahout 60 to 70 feet downhill to the north of the proposed
residence.
If huilding 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 site was vacant at the time of our field work. The ground
surface in the building area is relatively flat area with a strong to moderately steep slope
down to the north. The terrain becomes steeper in the southern portion of the lot with a
Gordon Viberg
September 9, I 999
Page 2
moderately steep to steep slope down to the south at grades of about 30%. There is
about 6 to 8 feet of elevation difference in the building area and about JOO feet across
the lot. The lot is vegetated with pinon trees, scattered sagebrush, grass and weeds.
Basalt cobbles and boulders are exposed on the ground surface.
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by
excavating one exploratory pit in the building area and one profile pit in the septic
disposal area at the approximate locations shown on Fig. I. The logs of the pits are
presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered, below about l 't'.1 feet of topsoil, consist
of basalt fragments up to boulder size in a silty sand matrix. Results of a gradation
analysis performed on a sample of the gravel (minus 6 inch fraction) obtained from the
site are presented on Fig. 3. No free water was observed in the pits at the time of
excavation and the soils were slightly moist to 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 3,000 psf for support of the proposed residence. Footings should be a
minimum width of 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. Loose and
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. Voids created by the removal of large rock should be backfilled with compacted
sand and gravel (such as road base) or concrete. 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 I 0 feet. Foundation
walls acting as retaining structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure
based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 45 pcf for the on-site soil, excluding
vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock as backfill.
Floor Slabs: The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support
lightly loaded slab-on-grade construction. To reduce the effects of some differential
movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with
H-P GEOTECH
Gordon Viberg
September 9, 1999
Page 3
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 slabs-on-grade 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 sl1ould 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 rock.
Underdrain System: Although free water was not encountered during our exploration,
it has been our experience in mountainous areas that local perched groundwater can
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. An underdrain
should not be needed for a shallow crawlspace provided the exterior backfill is properly
compacted and positive surface drainage is maintained around the residence.
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 I foot below lowest adjacent
finish grade and sloped at a minimum l % to a suitable gravity outlet. Free-draining
granular material used in the underdrain system should contain less than 2 % passing the
No. 200 sieve, less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and have a maximum size of
2 inches. The drain gravel backfill should be at least 11
/2 feet deep.
Surface Drainage: The following drainage precautions should be observed during
construction and maintained at all times after the residence has been completed:
H-P GEOTECH
Gordon Viberg
September 9, 1999
Page 4
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. Free-draining wall backfill should be
capped with about 2 feet of the on-site, finer graded soils to reduce
surface water infiltration.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We
recommend a minimum slope of 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in pavement
and walkway areas.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all backfill.
Percolation Testing: Percolation tests were conducted on August 24. 1999 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 about 1 1/2 feet of topsoil overlying relatively dense basalt fragments up to
boulder size in a silty sand matrix. The percolation test results are presented in Table I.
The percolation test results indicate an infiltration rate between 30 and 120 inches per
inch with an average of 70 minutes per inch. The percolation rates for test holes P-1
and P-2 may have been slower due to large rocks in the bottom of the test holes.
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. I, the proposed type of construction and our experience in
the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface
H·P GEOTECH
Gordon Yiberg
September 9. 1999
Page 5
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
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 excavJtions 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,
JZA/ksm
attachments
cc: Muse Architects -Attn: Dan Muse
H-P GEOTECH
199 625-1
6675
I I
1/
I '-
(._/' ' ' '
--------.
' ' ' ', ' '
...... t-' ' -' ' _____ , '
......,__~
APPROXIMATE SCALE
, .. = 150'
' '" ....... ' ' ...... _
PROFILE '-, '-, ---6675
PIT ' r--......... ~ 2 ', ',
6 7 00 ___ --l-_ _! _2 666:, ', ', EASEMENT
I -'-' I I P 3 ,-_ .J. _
I I ) I ---I 6700
I Pill I
I BUILOING • I
I EN~~P~~-------LOT 2
6725 ------l-_l. __ J --......
L___.---'\
6725 ---------------------
LOT 1
--- - - - - --L. - - - - -------------6700 --
-------6675 ----' ....... ,,.,,.,.....
6675
6650
J--...... --..-
-----. ~ ...... ----
------------- - -6650
-------...............
...... ...... --- -6625 ......
6625-------
--- - - - - - - -• I.. .............. 6600 ----- -J-"""-----------.1 6600
HEPWORTH -PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS
AND PERCOLATION TEST HOLES
_..,.
6700
Fig. 1
0
-" " LL
5
.r: -Q.
" 0
10
LEGEND:
PIT 1
ELEV. = 6 724'
I -..
PROFILE PIT
ELEV. = 6678'
I WC=\2.7 -.. +4-=63
-200=18
TOPSOIL; sandy silly cloy with basalt frogmen ts, organic, iirm, moist, dork brown.
BASALT FRAGMENTS (GM); in a silty sand matrix, fragments up to boulder size, dense,
slightly moist, brown to light brown, calcareous with depth.
Disturbed bulk sample.
T Practical digging refusal.
NOTES:
: . Exploratory pits were excavated on August 23, 1999 with a backhoe.
2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by peeing from features on the site
pion provided.
3. Elevations of the exploratory pits were obtained by interpolation between contours on the site
pion provided. Logs ore drown to depth.
4. The exploratory pit 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 pit logs represent the approximate
boUndories between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavating.
fluctuations in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( :r. )
+4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve
-200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve
199 625-1 HEPWORTH -PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
0
-Q)
" ....
5
.r: -Q.
" 0
10
Fig. 2
. ' . •
I H'l'DROMEll:R ANALYSIS I SIEVE AHAL YStS I
I TIME AEAOIHCS I U.S. STAN04RD SERIE.:$ I Ct.EAR SQUARE OP[)ltNCS I
24 HR. 7 HR
45 WIN. 15 MIN. 60 MIN.HI MIN. 4 MIN. 1 MIN. 1200 MO ,.. ,,. '" ,. ,. 3/8·112•3;4• 1 1/2•
100
to
..
"
'-' z 60
ii\
"' <{
Q_ ,_ so z w u
"' w
Q_
40
30
20
"
' .001 .002 .oos .OOll .01'1 .OJ7 .074 .ISO .300 .000 1.1e "" 4.75 Q.512.5 19.0 37.5
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
199 625-1
CLAY TO SILT I Mt I
GRAVEL 63 % SAND
LIQUID LIMIT %
SAMPLE OF: Silty Sandy Grovel with
HEPWORTH -PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
1f!iJw !Co1.RS£ I fiNE lill~lll:~ COAR#
19 % SILT AND CLAY
PLASTICITY INDEX %
Cobbles FROM: Profile Pit ot 5.5
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
J' 5•5• ,.
'
"
20
30
D
40 w z ;;: ,_
w
"' 50 ,_
z w u
"' w
Q_
00
70
80
IOO
76.2 "' "' m
I COBBLLS
18 %
thru 6.5 Feet
Fig. 3
• <,. • . ' ..
HOLE NO. HOLE DEPTH
!INCHES!
P-1 33
P-2 38
P-3 50
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS
LENGTH OF WATER DEPTH WATER DEPTH
INTERVAL AT START OF AT END OF
!MINI INTERVAL INTERVAL
ONCHESl !INCHES!
15 6 1/4 5 1/2
5 1/2 5 1 /4
5 1/4 5
5 4 3/4
4 314 4 112
4 1/2 4 114
15 7 314 7 114
7 114 7 1/4
7 114 7
7 7
7 6 314
6 314 6 314
15 7 6
6 5 1 /2
5 1/2 5
5 4 1/2
4 1/2 4
4 3 1 /2
JOB NO. 199 625· 1
DROP IN AVERAGE
WATER PERCOLATION
LEVEL RATE
!INCHES! IMIN./INCH)
3/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
1/4
114 60
112
0
114
0
114
0 120
1
112
1/2
1/2
1/2
1/2 30
NOTE: Percolation test holes were hand dug in the bottom of backhoe pits and soaked on August 23. 1999. Percolation test
were conducted on August 24, 1999. The average percolation rate was based on the last two readings of each test.
There were large rocks in the bottom of P· 1 and P-2.
• ••
June 4, 2002
Garfield County Building & Planning
I 09 Eighth Street, Third Floor
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
-----------------------------~~~-
RECEIVED JUN o 5 2002
Re: ISDS for Viberg Residence-Loi I West Rimledge Subdivision, Permit No. 3662
HCE Job No. 2021050.0218
To Whom It May Concern:
This letter is regarding the Individual Sewage Disposal System for the proposed Viberg Residence located
on Lot I of the West Rimledge Subdivision. It is High Country Engineering, lnc.'s (HCE) understanding
that the subdivision covenants require that an engineer verify the septic design. HCE's recommendations
are based on percolation testing performed by Garfield County personnel on May 9, 2002.
Apparently, only one percolation hole had been dug about 140-feet south of the proposed residence.
Also, no soil data was provided on the Individual Sewage Disposal Permit. The percolation result was 12
minutes per inch, which falls within an acceptable range for a typical state approved septic system. We
recommend the installation of an absorption bed, or absorption trenches using standard "Infiltrator" units.
We understand that this ISDS will serve a single-family residence with three (3) bedrooms and a garbage
disposal. Using two (2) people per bedroom as the basis of design, and a rate of75 gallons per day per
person, the estimated average wastewater flow would be 450 gallons per day. The design flow, per
regulation, is 1.5 times the average, or 675 gallons per day. The use of a garbage disposal requires that
the system size be increased by 20% for an adjusted design flow of 810 gallons per day.
The required standard absorption area (based on 12 minutes per inch) is 562 square feet. If the
"Infiltrator" units were installed in a bed configuration, a 40% reduction would be allowed. If the
"Infiltrator" units were installed trench system configuration, a 50% reduction would be allowed. At 15.5
square feet per unit, 22 units would be required in a bed configuration and 19 units would be required in a
trench configuration. Based on the adjusted design flow, the minimum size of septic tank is 1250-gallons.
Cleanouts should be also installed at all bends leading from the residence into the septic tank.
If you wish to use a standard gravel bed system, or if you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
RDN/djw
1517 Blake Avenue, Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Telephone (970) 945-8676 -Fax (970) 945-2555
14 Inverness Drive East Suite D-136
Englewood. CO 80112
Telephone (303) 925-0544 -Fax (303) 925-0547
