HomeMy WebLinkAbout160 Red Rock Rd - 246510401003 (2)INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT
EAGLE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION
P.O. Box 179 - 500 Broadway • Eagle, CO 81631
Telephone: (970) 328-8755
COPY OF PERMIT MUST BE POSTED AT INSTALLATION SITE. PERMIT NO. 1939-99 BP NO. 12891
OWNER: SONNY D'ANNA PHONE:970-927-5042
MAILING ADDRESS: 314 SOPRIS CIRCLE, BASALT, CO 81621
APPLICANT: JOHN GALAMBOS PHONE: 970-704-9750
SYSTEM LOCATION: 160 RED ROCK RD., EMMA, CO TAX PARCEL NO. 2465-104-01-002
LICENSED INSTALLER: HUGHES EXCAVATING, RANDY HUGHES LICENSE NO. 13-00 PHONE: 970-963-2004
DESIGN ENGINEER: HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, ROGER NEAL PHONE NO. 970-945-8676
INSTALLATION HEREBY GRANTED FOR THE FOLLOWING: MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR A 5 BEDROOM RESIDENCE
1500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK, WITH AN ADDITIONAL 1000 GALLON DOSING TANK, 1377 SQUARE FEET OF ABSORPTION AREA, VIA A SAND MOUND
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS:_ INSTALL AS PER ENGINEER'S DESIGN DATED 11/30/99. BE SURE TO MAINTAIN ALL SET BACK REQUIREMENTS AND DO
NOT INSTALL IN WET WEATHER. ENGINEER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL INSPECTION. DO NOT BACK FILL ANY PART OF THE INSTALLATION
UNTIL THE ENGINEER HAS INSPECTED AND APPROVED THE SYSTEM. BUILDING CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL
THE SEPTIC SYSTEM HAS BEEN APPROVED.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL: DATE: FEBRUARY 11, 2000
CONDITIONS:
I. ALL INSTALLATIONS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE EAGLE COUNTY INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM REGULATIONS,
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GRANTED IN 25-10-104, 1973, AS AMENDED.
2. THIS PERMIT IS VALID ONLY FOR CONNECTION TO STRUCTURES WHICH HAVE FULLY COMPLIED WITH COUNTY ZONING AND BUILDING
REQUIREMENTS. CONNECTION TO, OR USE WITH ANY DWELLING OR STRUCTURE NOT APPROVED BY THE ZONING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS SHALL
AUTOMATICALLY BE A VIOLATION OF A REQUIREMENT OF THE PERMIT, AND WILL RESULT IN BOTH LEGAL ACTION AND REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT.
3. CHAPTER IV, SECTION 4.03.29 REQUIRES ANY PERSON WHO CONSTRUCTS, ALTERS OR INSTALLS AN INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM TO
BE LICENSED.
FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM (TO BE COMPLETED BY INSPECTOR):
NO SYSTEM SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM REGULATIONS UNTIL THE SYSTEM
IS APPROVED PRIOR TO COVERING ANY PORTION OF THE SYSTEM.
INSTALLED ABSORPTION OR DISPERSAL AREA: 1377 SQUARE FEET (VIA •ANi) Mf,L Np ➢ES IGN )
INSTALLED CONCRETE S .PTT TANK: 1 500 GALLONS IS LOCATED EAST DEGREES AND 20 FEET INCHES
FROM THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF THE HOUSE,
INSTALLED CONCRETE DOSING TANK: 1000 GALLONS IS LOCATED EAST DEGREES AND 2 FEET 6 INCHES
FROM THE SEPTIC TANK.
COMMENTS: ENGINEER'S FINAL CERTIFICATION AND AS—BUTTT D AWTNC RFCFTVFD T)FCFMRFR 229 ?on()TNT.
SYSTEM IS LARGE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE A FIVE BEDROOM RESIDENCE.
ANY ITEM NOT MEETING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE CORRECTED BEFORE FINAL APPROVAL OF SYSTEM IS MADE. ARRANGE A RE -INSPECTION WHEN WORK IS
COMPLETED.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH APPROVAL �T (%%%�(,I'i{� DATE: DECEMBER 28, 2000
IYII'J -.7-1777 11:'tUH rrvi'i:tHtnLt l.UUNIY tNV HtH T0:19707040287 P:2/8
Incomplete Applications Will NOT Be Accepted
(Site Plan MUST be attached)
ISDS Permit # �✓ l—
Building Permit # �—
APPLICATION FOR INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS PERMIT
EN�JIRONMENTAL HEALTH OFFICE - EAGLE COUNTY
P. 0. BOX 179
EAGLE, CO 81631
328-8755/927-3823 (El Jebel)
* PERMIT APPLICATION FEE $150.00 PERCOLATION TEST FEE $200.00
*
*
* MAKE ALL REMITTANCE PAYABLE TO: "EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER"
PROPERTY OWNER:
MAILING ADDRESS- 3) q 5-pw- tS o -1,C fF(.T PHONE:
APPLICANT/CONTACT PERSON: ofF� 1�� 5 PHON q7o-7p`H75o
LICENSED SYSTEMS CONTRACTOR:
COMPANY/DBA: ADDRESS:
PERMIT APPLICATION IS FOR: vl� NEW INSTALLATION ( ) ALTERATION ( ) REPAIR
LOCATION OF PROPOSED INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM:
Legal Description:
Tax Parcel Number:
Physical Address:
BUILDING TYPE: (Check applicable category)
Residential/Single Family
Residential/Multi-Family*
t ) Commercial/Industrial*
TYPE OF WATER SUPPLY: (Check applicable category)
(x) Well ( ) Spring ( ) Surface
( ) Public Name of Supplier:
*These syste
SIGNATUR
AMOUNT PAID:
Number of Bedrooms
Number of Bedrooms
't'1'pe
ign by a Registered Professional
VLIA Date:
*********************************************
/5 (�
RECEIPT #: � "5� DATE: _
CHECK #: CASHIER:
f�
Community Development Department
(970) 328-8730
FAX (970) 328-7185
TDD (970) 328-8797
Email: eccmdeva@vail.net
http: //www.eagle-county.com
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Date: February 11, 2000
TO: Hughes Excavating
FROM: Environmental Health Division
Eagle County Building
P.O. Box 179
500 Broadway
Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179
RE: Issuance of Individual Sewage Disposal System Permit No. 1939-99. Tax Parcel
# 2465-104-01-002; Property Location: 160 Red Rock Rd., Emma, CO., D'Anna
residence.
Enclosed is your ISDS Permit No. 1939-99. It is valid for 120 days. The enclosed copy of the
permit must be posted at the installation site. Any changes in plans or specifications
invalidates the permit unless otherwise approved. Please note any special requirements
that may have been added to the design by this department.
Systems designed by a Registered Professional Engineer must be certified by the Engineer
indicating that the system was installed as specified. Eagle County does not perform final
inspections on engineer designed systems. Your TCO will not be issued until our office
receives this certification.
Permit specifications are minimum requirements only, and should be brought to the property
owner's attention.
This permit does not indicate conformance with other Eagle County requirements. Please
notify this office if you have not been contracted to perform this installation.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the Environmental Health Division at 328-
8755.
cc: files
High Country Engineering, Roger Neal
Community Development Department
(970) 328-8730
FAX 076)179-7199
TDD (970) 328-8797
Emailf@eemdevao-vxil.net
http: //www.eagle-county.com
December 28, 2000
Sonny D'Anna
160 Red Rock Road
Emma, CO 81621
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
Eagle County Building
P.O. Box 179
500 Broadway
Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179
RE: Final of ISDS Permit #1939-99, Tax Parcel #2465-104-01-002. Property
location: 160 Red Rock Road., Emma, CO.
Dear Mr. D'Anna:
This letter is to inform you that the above referenced ISDS Permit has been inspected and
finalized. Enclosed is a copy to retain for your records. This permit does not indicate
compliance with any other Eagle County requirements. Also enclosed is a brochure regarding
the care of your septic system.
Be aware that later changes to your building may require appropriate alterations of your septic
system.
If you have any questions regarding this permit, please contact the Eagle County Environmental
Health Division at (970) 328-8755.
Sincerely,
e
1
Janet Kohl
Environmental Health Department
Eagle County Community Development
ENCL: Informational Brochure
Final ISDS Permit
cc: files
April 19, 2000
Ray Merry
Eagle County Environmental Health Department
P. O. Box 179
Eagle, CO 81631
Re: ISDS for the D'Anna Residence, Lot 3 Red Rock Ranch PUD
HCE File Number 99004.38
Dear Ray:
On April 3, 2000 High Country Engineering personnel observed the construction of the ISDS
located on Lot 3 Red Rock Ranch PUD. All of the components of the system had been installed,
and only minor backfilling had taken place. A 1500 gallon septic tank and a 36'x46' gravel bed
with inspection wells had been installed. The sewer pipe from the house was also installed, with
cleanouts. At this time the dosing pump was not installed. The installation of the system is in
conformance with the intent of the design. We are providing you with a drawing of the system as
constructed with location of the final components shown.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact us..
Sincerely,
HIGH COU TRY ENGINEERING, INC.
A
Roger D. Neal
Principal Engineer
cc: D'Anna
923 Cooper Avenue 14 Inverness Drive East, Ste B-144
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Englewood, CO 80112
phone 970 945-8676 • fax 970 945-2555 phone 303 925-0544 • fax 303 925-0547
December 20, 2000
Ray Merry
Eagle County Environmental Health Department
P. O. Box 179
Eagle, CO 81631
Via Fax: 328-0349
Re: ISDS for the D'Anna Residence, Lot 3 Red Rock Ranch PUD
HCE File Number 99004.38
Dear Ray:
On December 20, 200o High Country Engineering, Inc. personnel made a second site
visit to the D'Anna residence located on Lot 3 Red Rock Ranch PUD. All of the
components of ISDS system had been previously installed and inspected by H.C.E. This
visit was to insure that the dosing pump was installed. The dosing pump was in fact
installed and was visually inspected. The dosing pump installation conforms to the
intent of the design.
If you have any questions, or need additional information, please contact us.
Sincerely,
HIGH COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC.
e rc-'< -
GU✓�.J
Eric P. Tuin, E.I.
Project Engineer
923 Cooper Avenue
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
phone 970 945-8676 • fax 970 945-2555
14 Inverness Drive East, Ste B-144
Englewood, CO 80112
phone 303 925-0544 • fax 303 925-0547
r.
i; To simplify the design of small pressure distribution networks, Table 7-
13, and.Figures 7-28, 7-29, and 7-30, may be used. Examples 7-2 and 7-3
illustrate their use. Other design methods may be equally suitable;
however.
TABLE 7-13
DISCHARGE RATES FOR VARIOUS SIZED HOLES
AT VARIOUS PRESSURES (gpm)
Pressure Hole -Diameter (in.)
t
1
0.43
0.74
1.15
1.66
2.26
2.95
2
0.87
1.04
1.63
2.34
3.19
4.17
3
1.30
1.28
1.99
2.87
3.91
5.10
4
1.73
1.47
2.30
3.31
4.51
5.89
5
2.17
1.65
2.57
3.71
5.04
6.59
Example 7-2: Design of a Pressure Distribution Network for a Trench
A sorption ie
Design a pressure network for an absorption field consisting of five
trenches, each 3 ft wide by 40 ft long, and spaced 9 ft apart center to
center.
Step 1: Select lateral. length. Two layouts are suitable for this
system: central manifold (Figure 7-24) or end manifold (Figure
7-25). For a central manifold design, ten 20-ft laterals are
used; for an end manifold design, five 40-ft laterals are
required. The end manifold design is used in this example.
Step 2: Select hole diameter and hdle, spacing for laterals. For this
example, 1/4-in. diameter holes spaced every 30 in. are used,
although other combinations could be used.
Post -it'" Fax Note 7671
Date j l /a 4 ai
pages
From �(xura Fc�wce-H
Co./Dept.
U L n
Co.
�GL ( WU rZ
Phone # q . � (i � J
Phone
Fax # q L15_ a,55 5
Fax # 3 z 8 a`t`l
284
Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 County Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone: 970-945-7988
Fax:970-945-8454
hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
November 2, 1999
Sonny and Cheryl D'Anna
314 Sopris Circle
Basalt, Colorado 81621 . Job No. 199 746
Subject: Percolation Testing, Proposed Residence, Lot 3, Red Rock Ranch, Red
Rock Road, Eagle County, Colorado
Dear Mr. & Mrs. D'Anna:
As requested by Eric Tuin with High Country Engineering, we observed a profile pit
and performed percolation testing for design of an infiltration septic disposal system at
the subject site. Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical Inc., previously performed a subsoil
study for design of foundations at the site dated September 30, 1999, Job No. 199 746.
One profile pit and six percolation holes were dug at the locations shown on Fig. 1.
Two sites were tested. Percolation tests P-4 thru P-6 were at the preferred site, and
tests P-1 thru P-3 were at the alternate site. 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 relatively
'�sliky zlaelith c6bble acid boults The soils are similar to
encountered in our previous borings at
The percolation test results, presented in Table I, indicate average percolation rates
ranging from about 51/2 to 20 minutes per inch. The average rates were determined from
the last 3 readings at each test location. The 20 min/in rate (P-6) was in a near surface
clay soil zone. Based on the subsurface conditions encountered and the percolation test
results, the test areas should be suitable for a conventional infiltration septic disposal
system.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely, •��0ee�t�
HEPWORTH - PA
INC.
�y
�
David A. Young, P.1 p (216 ; cr
Rev. By: DEH edc°•• r/- •.•° �:
DAY/ksm *® �;°,,+°•••.'..•°�••'��'��`•
attachments
cc: High Country EngineeitV49-ttn: Eric Tuin
Galambos/Muir Architects - Attn: Rich Pacvek
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1"=60'
LOT 2
RED RDck RO
qD
1
BARN �-
BUILDING /
ENVELOPE / QP1
\\ / A OP3
P2/
\ BORING 3 /
\ �i /
\� PROPOSED` — 1 r
LEACHFIELD
LOCATION #1
�� . • • PROF
.0-1 \
IRRIGATION . \
(TYPHCAL) ES / Ole
BORING 2 \`
I �
APPROXIMATE \ BORING 1
BUILDING
LOCATION \
OF EXISTING WELL \ ` ENVELOPE
0
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF
NEW WATER WELL
0
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION
OF EXISTING WELL
BENCH MARK: ' \
CONCRETE BASE OF
ELECTRIC BOX,
�SSUMED ELEVATION
= 100.0'.
r--
�
ITP4
'S '
P5
1
� �If
�.i PROPOSED
LEACHFIELD
LOCATION #2
(PREFERRED)
LOT -�
n�� nin • n�rr
LEGEND
O BORING DRILLED FOR
PREVIOUS STUDY, 199746
LOT 5 ■ PIT EXCAVATED FOR THIS
STUDY
p PERCOLATION TEST HOLE
EXCAVATED FOR THIS STUDY
199 746 HE-PWORTH — PAWLAK LOCATION OF PERCOLATION TESTING Fig. 1
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
PROFILE PIT
ELEV. = 104.4'
0 0
g 0• .
••O0•
D
U- +Oog 5 � 5
a e��••1 d
N g0•�: _ N
10 10
LEGEND:
TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, organic, slightly moist, brown.
e o•
GRAVEL (GM —GP); sandy, slightly silty, with cobbles and boulders, dense, slightly moist, brown.
Disturbed bulk sample.
_J
NOTES:
1. The exploratory profile pit was excavated on October 22, 1999 with a backhoe.
2. Location of the exploratory profile pit was measured approximately by pacing from features shown
on the site plan provided.
3. Elevation of the exploratory profile pit was measured by instrument level and refers to the Bench Mark
shown on Fig. 1. The log of the exploratory profile pit is drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory profile pit location and the elevation should be considered accurate only to the degree
implied by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory profile pit log represent the approximate
boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the pit at the time of excavating. Fluctuations in water level
may occur with time. The previous study borings were dry when checked on October 22, 1999.
Who 4vjatA,-� 4�-
199 746 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK LOG, OF EXPLORATORY PROFILE PIT Fig. 2
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO.. 199 746
Paaa 1 of 2
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN./INCH)
P-1
23
10
water added
water added
water added
water added
water added
7
3 1 /4
3 3/4
5 1/2
6 1/4
3 1/2
2 3/4
6
3
3
6 1/4
3 1/3
3
6
4 1/4
1 3/4
6
4
2
4
2 1/2
1 1/2
P-2
25
10
water added
7
5
2
11
5
3 1/4
1 3/4
6 314
5 1/4
1 1/2
5 1/4
3 112
1 3/4
7
6
1
6
5
1
5
4
1
4
3 114
3/4
P-3
26
10
water added
water added
8
6 3/4
1 1/4
11
6 3/4
4 1/2
2 1/4
8
6 314
1 1/4
6 3/4
4 3/4
2
8 3/4
7 3/4
1
7 3/4
6 3/4
1
6 3/4
5 3/4
1
5 314
5
3/4
NOTE: Percolation holes in bottom of backhoe pits were hand dug and pre-soaked on October 25, 1999. Percolation tests
performed on October 26, 1999 by Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The average percolation rate was based on
the last 3 readings of each test..
HEPWORTH-PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
TABLE I
PERCOLATION TEST RESULTS JOB NO. 199 746
Pann 7 of ')
HOLE NO.
HOLE DEPTH
(INCHES)
LENGTH OF
INTERVAL
(MIN)
WATER DEPTH
AT START OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES)
WATER DEPTH
AT END OF
INTERVAL
(INCHES).
DROP IN
WATER
LEVEL
(INCHES)
AVERAGE
PERCOLATION
RATE
(MIN./INCH)
P-4
27
10
water added
water added
water added
9
6
3
5 1/2 . .
6
3 1/2
2 1/2
8
4 1/4
3 3/4
8 3/4
7
1 3/4
7
4 3/4
2 1/4
9
7 1/2
1 112
7 1/2
5 1/2
2
5 1/2
3 1/2
2
P-5
25
10
water added
water added
8 1 /2
6 1 /4
2 1 /4
8 1/2
6 1/4
4 1/2
1 3/4
4 1/2
2 112
2
7 3/4
6 1/2
1 1/4
6 1/2
5 1/4
1 1/4
5 1/4
4 1/4
1
4 1/4
3
1 1/4
5 3/4
4 1/2
1 1/4
P-6
(clayey
soils)
25
10
8 3/4
8
3/4
20`:.
8
7 1/4
3/4
7 1/4
6 1/4
1
6 1/4
5 3/4
1/2
5314
5 1/4
1/2
5 1/4
4 314
112
NOTE: Percolation holes in bottom of backhoe pits were hand dug and pre-soaked on October 25, 1999. Percolation tests
performed on October 26, 1999 by Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. The average percolation rate was based on
the last 3 readings of each test.
LIVV 10 UJ LLVL1 UI-JJ FIL1 111U11 VVU11IL\L UHUILIULV. i1XU FnA IYV, 0 ( U 04U r-UUU F. UG
L.-Yd "1U.LOJ-
�r i
Novert bor 12, 1999
UORWOrth-pawtak Geotechnical, Inc.
3020 CaWy Road 158
Glenwood Springs, r,o1arado $1601
Phone-, 97q-9a5-7988
Fax:1%70-945-sasa
hp;QD �Iip�MlttCkl,COtb1
S,oany and Cheryl D'Anna
314 Sopris Circle
Basalt, Colorado 81621 , Sob No. 199 746
Subject; Cornments Rrgardtng Groundwater Condidons, Proposed Residence,
iSDS System, Lot 3, Red Rack Ranch, led Rack Road, Eagle County,
Colorado
Dear Mr, & Mrs. D'Anna;
As requtstcd by Eric Tu.in with kligh Country Engineering, we arc providing comments
regarding groundwater conditions at the site for design of the proposed 18DS system.
Hepwox+- Pawl Geotechnical, Inc previously perfomWd a subsoil study for
foundation design and percolation testing at tho site submitting our findings uadcr rob
No. 199 7.46 in reports dated September 30 and November 2, 1999, respectively.
We understand Eagle County is concerned about potential shallow groundwater and its
LnPaet on a conventional leach field septic disposal system at the site, Our previous
borings and pits encountoretl no groundwater and slightly moist subsoils to the
maximum depth investigated of 10 feet. We did not observe indications of seasonal
shallow groundwater in the beckhoe excavated profile pit. fn addition, we have
discussed water levels in the existing wells on the lot with Wayne Shelton of Shelton
.Drilling (970-927-4182). Mr, Shelton stated the free water levels in the wells have
been measured between about 25 to 30 feet.
If you have any questions or need further assistance, please call our office.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH - PKWLA_&W_ftMWANiCAL, INC.
)avid ,A,. Youn P `J v 411 Z
gf, 32-216 a
Rev. Ey; DEH,..:`'',��,.
DAYItem
cc; High Country Engineering - Aan: Eric Tuin.
OalamboslMuir Architects - Attn: Rich Paevek
ZG- /ZfO ' d
H33105Q d—H EV :ZT 68ET—ET--AON
Kir11 1_ 1 1--_ 1 (MQCI MnK1 MQ - -74 dM Tr) - Cnr-'l C ('fll IKITV Ch11 I UC7nl TU 1713f_C - 0
otech
Repworth-Pawlak,Geotechnical, Inc.
5020 Countv Road 154
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
Phone:970-945-7988
Fax:970-945-8454
hpgeo@hpgeotech.com
SUBSOIL STUDY
FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED RESIDENCE AND BARN
LOT 3, RED ROCK RANCH
RED ROCK ROAD, EMMA
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
.JOB NO. 199 746
SEPTEMBER 30,1999
PREPARED FOR:
SONNY AND CHERYL V ANNA
314 SOPRIS CIRCLE
BASALT, COLORADO 81621
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
September 30, 1999
Sonny & Cheryl D'Anna
314 Sopris Circle
Basalt, Colorado 81621
Job No. 199 746
Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed
Residence and Barn, Lot 3, Red Rock Ranch, Red Rock Road, Emma,
Eagle County, Colorado.
Dear Mr. & Mrs. •D'Anna:
As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed residence and barn at
the subject site.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed
building areas consist of about 1 foot of topsoil and 1 to ] `/z feet of stiff clay overlying
relatively dense slightly silty sandy gravel. with cobbles and possible boulders.
Groundwater was not encountered in the borings at the time of drilling.
The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural gravel
subsoils beneath the topsoil and clay and designed for an'.allowable bearing pressure of
3,000 psf.
The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and
presents our recommendations. It is important that we provide consultation during
design, and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation.
of the geotechnical recommendations.
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact us.
Sincerely,
ORTH - PAWLAK G OTECHNICAL, INC.
Co
Jordy . Aim n, Jr., P.E.
Rev. y: H
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY ........................................ 1
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ............................................ I
SITE CONDITIONS..................................................... 2
FIELD EXPLORATION ............... ....................... ........ 2
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ............................................. 2
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................... 3
FOUNDATIONS .................................................. 3
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS ............................ 4
FLOORSLABS ................................................... 5
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM ........................................... 6
SURFACE DRAINAGE ............................................ 6
LIMITATIONS......................................................... 7
FIGURE I - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
H-P GEOTEGH
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed residence and
barn to be located on Lot 3, Red Rock Ranch, Eagle County, Colorado. The project site
is shown on Fig. 1. The purpose of the study was to develop recommendations for the
foundation design. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for
geotechnical engineering services to Sonny and Cheryl D'Anna dated September 17,
1999.
A field exploration program. consisting of exploratory borings was conducted to
obtain information on subsurface conditions. Samples of the subsoils obtained during the
field exploration were tested in the laboratory to determine their classification,
compressibility or swell and other engineering characteristics. The results of the field
exploration and laboratory testing were analyzed to develop recommendations for
foundation types, depths and allowable pressures for the proposed building foundation.
This report summarizes the data obtained during this study and presents our conclusions,
design recommendations and other geotechnical engineering considerations based on the
proposed construction and the subsoil conditions encountered.
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
The proposed residence will be a one and two story woodframe structure with a
partial basement level. Ground floor will be slab -on -grade. Grading for the structure is
assumed to be relatively minor with. cut depths between about 4 to 8 feet. We assume
relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of construction.
If building loadings, location or grading plans change significantly from those
described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations contained in
this report.
H-P GEOTECH
-2-
SITE CONDITIONS
The site was vacant at the time of our field work. The ground surface is relatively
flat with a slight slope down to the northwest. There is about 1 to 2 feet of elevation
difference across the lot. Vegetation consists primarily of grass and weeds with
cottonwood trees on the northern side of the lot adjacent to Red Rock Road. There is
scrub brush in the proposed barn location.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on September 21, 1999.
Three exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. 1 to evaluate the
subsurface conditions. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous
flight augers powered by a truck -mounted Longyear BK-51 HD drill rig. The borings
were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 13/8 inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon samplers.
The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows from a 1.40
pound hammer falling 30 inches. This test is similar to the standard penetration test
described by ASTM Method D-1586. The penetration resistance values are an indication
of the relative density or consistency of the subsoils. Depths at which the samples were
taken and the penetration resistance values are shown on the Logs of Exploratory.
Borings, Fig. 2. The samples were returned to our laboratory for review by the project
engineer and testing.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about 1 foot of topsoil and 1 to. I1/2 feet of stiff clay
overlying relatively dense, slightly silty sandy gravel containing cobbles and possible
H-P GEOTECH
boulders. Drilling in the dense gravel with auger equipment was difficult due to the
cobbles and boulders and drilling refusal was encountered in the deposit.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included
natural. moisture content and density. Results of swell consolidation testing performed on
a relatively undisturbed drive sample, presented on Fig. 4, indicate low compressibility
under existing moisture conditions and light loading and a low expansion potential when
wetted under a constant light surcharge. The sample showed high compressibility upon
increased loading after wetting.
No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling and the
subsoils were slightly moist t2-DjoiaL
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and the
nature of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with spread
footings bearing on the natural granular soils below the topsoil and clay soils.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a
spread footing foundation system.
1.) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural granular soils should be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 3,000 psf. Based on
experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as
discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less.
2) The footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches for continuous
walls and 2 feet for isolated pads.
3) Exterior footings and footings beneath unheated areas should be provided
with adequate soil cover above their bearing elevation for frost protection.
Placement of foundations at least 36 inches below exterior grade is
typically used in this area.
H-P GEOTECH
-4-
4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span
local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least
10 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should also be
designed to resist lateral earth pressures as discussed in the "Foundation
and Retaining Walls" section of this report.
5) The topsoil, clays and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and
the -footing bearing level extended down to relatively dense natural
granular soils. If water seepage is encountered, the footing areas should
be dewatered before concrete placement.
6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Foundation walls and retaining strictures which are laterally supported and can be
expected to undergo only a slight amount of deflection should be designed for a lateral
earth pressure computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 50 pcf for
backfill consisting of the on -site granular soils. Cantilevered retaining structures which.
are separate from the residence and can be expected to deflect sufficiently to mobilize the
full active earth pressure condition should be designed for a lateral earth pressure
computed on the basis of an equivalent fluid unit weight of 40 pcf for backfill consisting
of the on -site granular soils. Backfill should not contain vegetation, topsoil, clay soils or
oversized rock.
All foundation and retaining structures should be designed for appropriate
hydrostatic and surcharge pressures such as adjacent footings, traffic, construction
materials and equipment. The pressures recommended above assume drained conditions
behind the walls and a horizontal backfill surface. The buildup of water behind a wall or
an upward sloping backfill surface will increase the lateral pressure imposed on a
foundation wall or retaining structure. An underdrain should be provided to prevent
hydrostatic pressure buildup behind walls.
H-P GEOTECH
-5-
Backfill should be placed in uniform lifts and compacted to at least 90% of the
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Backf ll in
pavement and walkway areas should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum
standard Proctor density. Care should be taken not to overcompact the backfill or use
large equipment near the wall, since this could cause excessive lateral pressure on the
wall. Some settlement of deep foundation wall backfill should be expected, even if the
material is placed -correctly, and could result in distress to facilities constructed on the
backfill..
The lateral resistance of foundation or retaining wall footings will be a
combination of the sliding resistance of the footing on the foundation materials and
passive earth pressure against the side of the footing. Resistance to sliding at the bottoms
of the footings can be calculated based on a coefficient of friction of 0.50. Passive
Pressure of compacted backfill against the sides of the footings can be calculated using an
equivalent fluid unit weight of 350 pcf. The coefficient of friction and passive pressure
values recommended above assume ultimate soil strength. Suitable factors of safety
should be included in the design to limit the strain which will occur at the ultimate
strength, particularly in the case of passive resistance. Fill placed against the sides of the
footings to resist lateral loads should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum.
FLOOR SLABS
The natural on -site gravel soils, exclusive of topsoil and clay, are suitable to
support lightly loaded slab -on -grade construction. The upper clay coils have variable
settlement/heave potential and should be removed from the building area. 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
H-P GEOTECH
sl
material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4
sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve.
All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95% of
maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill
can consist of the on -site gravels devoid of vegetation, topsoil, clay and oversized rock.
UNDERDRAIN SYSTEM
Although free water was not encountered during our exploration, it has been our
experience in the area that local perched groundwater may develop during times of heavy
precipitation or seasonal runoff. Frozen ground during spring runoff can create a perched
condition. We recommend below -grade construction, such as retaining walls 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 11/z feet deep.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and
maintained at all times after the residence and barn have been completed:
1) Inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should be
avoided during construction.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas.
H-P GEOTECH
-7-
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 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in paved areas.
Free -draining wall backfill should be capped with about 2 feet of the
on -site finer graded soils to reduce surface water infiltration.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all
backfill.
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 borings drilled 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 borings and variations in the subsurface conditions may not
become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during.
construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified so
that re-evaluation of the recommendations may be made.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design
purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our
information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field
services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our
recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately
interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications
H-P GEOTECH
to the recommendations presented herein. We recommend on -site observation of
excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative
of the geotechnical engineer.
Sincerely,
HEPWORTH -
Jordy Z. Adamson, J,f., P.
Reviewed by:
I�
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E.
INC
RE S
29707 t
S�0NAt.
JZA/sd
cc: Galambos/Muir Architects, LLC - Attn: Rich Pavicek
Martin Design - Attn: Chris Gamache
H-P GEOTECH
BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3
0
0
8/6.12/6
15/6.10/0 a0 ' 0"
O• WC=12.7 '
DD-106
36/5,10/0
12/6 4•
• •Qe
�04 e
e O• O••
�
N
0
10
Oo
10
15
15
Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Fig. 3.
199
746
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
LOGS OF. EXPLORATORY BORINGS
Fig..2
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LEGEND:
TOPSOIL; sandy silty clay, organic, firm, slightly moist, brown.
CLAY (CL); silty; slightly sandy, stiff to very stiff, slightly moist, reddish brown.
P.a�
- GRAVEL (GP —GM); sandy, slightly silty, with cobbles and possible boulders, dense, slightly moist,
brown, subrounded to rounded rock.
Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2—inch I.D. California liner sample.
Drive sample; standard penetration test ( SPT ), 1 3/8—inch I.D. split spoon sample, ASTM D — 1586.
39/12 Drive sample blow count; indicates that 39 blows of a 140—pound hammer falling 30 inches were
required to drive the California or SPT sampler 12 inches.
fir- Practical rig refusal.
NOTES:
1. Exploratory borings were drilled on September 21, 1999 with a 4—inch diameter continuous flight power
auger.
2. Locations of exploratory borings were measured approximately by pacing from features shown
on the site plan provided.
3. Elevations of exploratory borings were not measured and the logs are drawn to depth.
4. The exploratory boring locations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied
by the method used.
5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory boring logs represent the approximate boundaries
between material types and transitions may be gradual.
6. No free water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling.
Fluctuation in water level may occur with time.
7. Laboratory Testing Results:
WC = Water Content ( % )
DD = Dry Density ( pcf )
I 199 746 I HEPWORTH - PAWLAK I LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 I
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Moisture Content = 12.7 percent
Dry Density Weight = 106 pcf
Sample of: Silty Clay
From: Boring 1 at 2 Feet
0
1
2
3
c
0
0
4
a
Expansion
W
upon
1
5
wetting
c
0
.(n
U)
a�
a
6
0
U
7
8
9
0.1
1.0
10 100
APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf
199
746
HEPWORTH — PAWLAK
SWELL —CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Fig. 4
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
1939-99 Tax42465-104-01-003
Lot #3, Red Rock Ranch W ANNA
JOB NAME 160 Red Rock Rd., Emma JOB NO.
LOCATION
.• -
i
.•
.• BILLED
woi
/o
//. / %t �rL..J
, 1
L f11 ./ice_ . 1- i /...I. /I
I 'Im—muk mr-119NOWEAVOYAW&
i_ ., /D/ rr i .: �l.. I i �_
, ! /�'Vxm' i�_..
1 f_ �! ��� �� /�!
�_1 L ii_�%- i.J .�i�1.1L: la-,
11111 mil 10�'WwwI
i VON,
�lul � � � - � � J Nf- IlSo �i
• B COST SUMMARY
TOTAL ..
CE
TOTAL MATERIAL
100
W— m W - d I W: WN W Zf Of, KMW.A J9-- 3 1 , We ��ml
Nil
lot "', o o W14 N WON FA I pp5.
MISC. COSTS
�.���rueAX.�'
�1► I ! .� I � t�! �� .ram � _� � :l _r...�. t � � � ,�. � _,�
.!
r
TOTAL JOB COST
MINE
GROSS PROFIT
ANY,,
LESS OVERHEAD COSTS
% OF SELLING PRICE
_■.
�'�
1111
iilqill� .� ,1
1
%' � .� i ! i. , �.�3 � 1 J , �
I
� • i �
- •
_,
-
I
. I
,
i
i
GRAPHIC SCALE
160
RO0,
1?Oq
O
SITE --PLAN-
EXISTING CONTOURS ONLY SHOWN
NOTE: 2" SCHEDULE 40 PVC OR
ALL PIPING MUST DRAIN 200 PSI POLYETHYLENE
BACK TO DOSING TANK FROM DOSING TANK
LATERAL PIPE LAYOUT
N.T.S.
1
1-1/2" PVC LATERALS
6 , TYP.
BED OF 1 1/2" SCREENED
ROCK, 12- THICK
SEE NOTES FOR MIN.
BASE AREA `
IL MIN J
24" MIN
DISTRIBUTION LATERAL
(TYP. )
SCALE: 1 " = 2000'
T8S, R87W, 6TH PM
BASALT QUADRANGLE
4"X4—
TREATED ELEC. JCT. BOX
POST
2" AIR VENT
RISER(S) TO
GROUND SURFACE
CAULK/SEAL WELL 2" FEEDER LINE TO
FIELD, SLOPED AT
INLET 1/8" PER FT. MIN.
SHALL DRAIN BACK
. TO TANK AFTER
EACH PUMP CYCLE.
FILTER FABRIC
FOR MINIMUM BASE AREA
SECTION A - A.
N.T.S.
z
N "ALARM
QUICK DISCONNECT
OR UNION
d
"ON" COIL AND TIE AN
ADDITIONAL 10' OF
WEIGHT WIRE FOR PUMP
44 REMOVAL
SUBMERSIBLE WASTEWATER PUMP
"OFF"
d 00
SET PUMP
APPROX.
OFF FLOOR
- - • - r- - ANOTES:
1. SWITCHES TO BE MERCURY FLOAT TYPE_
2. FLOAT SWITCH DIMENSIONS ARE BASED ON A COPELAND 1000 GAL TANK.
(CISTERN)
3. DOSING TANK SHALL BE OF WATERTIGHT CONSTRUCTION.
4. ALARM SHALL BE BOTH AUDIBLE AND VISIBLE, LOCATED WITHIN
THE HOUSE AND ON A CIRCUIT SEPARATE FROM THE PUMP.
5. PUMP SHALL BE CAPABLE OF AT LEAST 50 GPM ® 10 FT. OF HEAD.
(ELEVATION DIFFERENCE AND PIPE LENGTHS SHALL BE FIELD MEASURED BY
CONTRACTOR AND REFERRED TO ENGINEER FOR VERIFICATION OF PUMP PARAMETERS.)
6. FIELD WILL BE DOSED AN AVERAGE OF 3 TIMES PER DAY AT 369 GALLONS PER
DOSE, GIVEN THE FLOAT SWITCH ARRANGEMENT ABOVE.
DOSING TANK ARRANGEMENT
N.T.S.
EXISTING GROUND
SLOPE TO SURFACE
DRAIN 4
0
m
a
a
-
W
W
GENERAL
to
v
NOTES
1. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY
J
Q
REGULATIONS OF INDIVIDUAL SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS, EVEN THOUGH
U
ALL SUCH REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON THE
w
w
DRAWINGS. -THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCH
V)
SPECIFIC DETAILS AS ARE REFERRED TO IN THE ABOVELMENTIONED
>
>-
REGULATIONS.cx
N
0
2. 5 BEDROOMS 2 PERSONS/BEDROOM * 75 GALLONS/PERSON/DAY IS:
w
Li
750 GALLONS/DAY AVERAGE; FLOW
o
0
DESIGN FLOW = 1.5 * 750 GALLONS/DAY = 1125 GPD (0)
J
-
0
o
SEPTIC TANK: k
w
1125*1.25 = 1406 GALLONS
z
w
USE 1500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK, WITH BAFFLES
0
}
MINIMUM ABSORPTION BED AREA:
A 1125 ,r2, 1006 SQUARE FEET.
0
cr
p
}
>
5 5 1
V)
Q
***EAGLE COUNTY REQUIRES A 130% INCREASE IN BED SIZE IF NOT
5
x
IN TRENCHES, THEREFORE: 1006 SF * 1.3 = 1308 SQUARE FEET
PLUS AN INCREASE FOR A GARBAGE GRINDER OF * 1.053 = 1377 S.F.
0
3. SAND FILL SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA:
o
100% SHALL PASS THE #4 SIEVE (6.4 MM).
o
N
<10% SHALL PASS THE #200 SIEVE (0.13 MM) AND SHALL HAVE A
UNIFORMITY COEFFICIENT LESS THAN 5 (D60/D10<5),
w
CONCRETE SAND AND MASONRY SAND WILL BOTH GENERALLY MEET THESE
w
a
CRITERIA.
cn
-
T
-
>
0
U
4. CLEAN OUTS ARE REQUIRED AT A%L BENDS AND AT LEAST EVERY 100
Li
FEET ALONG THE HOUSE SEWER.
a
Ll
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR INSTALLING ALL
.
U
0
W
COMPONENTS OF THIS SYSTEM PRIOR TO THE ABSORPTION AREA WATER
w
O
TIGHT TO PREVENT INFILTRATION.
-i
d
Q
6. TOPSOIL COVER MAY BE VARIED (WITH 1 FOOT MINIMUM) TO ALLOW
w
LANDSCAPING.
a
w
IL
7. INSTALL RISERS AS NECESSARY TO BRING ALL ACCESS POINTS TO
WITHIN ONE-HALF FOOT OF FINAL GRADE.
rn
rn
_
Li
8. LOCATIONS OF ALL COMPONENTS MAY BE VARIED AS NECESSARY AS LONG
o
= AS ALL MINIMUM DISTANCES AND SLOPES MEET THOSE REQUIRED.
`j
9. PROVIDE POSITIVE DRAINAGE OF SURFACE WATER AWAY FROM SAND BED
AREA USING DRAINAGE SWALES AS NECESSARY.
10. SOILS AND PERCOLATION fINFORMATION FROM REPORTS BY HP GEOTECH,
z
N
JOB # 199 746. DATED OCTOBER 27, 1999._ SOILS ENGINEER MUST APPROVE
NATIVE MATERIAL AT BED BOTTOM-
11. THIS DRAWING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ISDS PERMIT:L PERMIT MUST BE
OBTAINED FROM APPROPRIATE CITY OR COUNTY OFFICIALS.
12. THIS SYSTEM IS SIZED FOR TYPICAL DOMESTIC WASTES ONLY. BACKWASH
OR FLUSHING FLOWS FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS UNITS OR WATER SOFTENERS
OR FILTERS SHOULD NOT BE INTRODUCED INTO THIS SYSTEM.
13. BASE MAP INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GALAMBOS/MUIR ARCHITECTS, LLC.
VIA. ELECTRONIC FILE, OCTOBER 27, 1999. TOPOGRAPHY INFORMATION
DIGITIZED FROM SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER INC. PLAN OF RED ROCK RANCH
P.U.D. DATED JANUARY 31, 1991.
rn
rn
4
Q
z
m
Z
a
a-
w
N
Q
O
�
r-
Uj
P
L►1
W
ft
Y
Q
J
0
U
ti
(O
0
Q
�
cn
0
al
0
(
U
Q
p
ce z
< ~
0 °�
o�
Q
JY
0
ULLI
8
CVO
C_3 �
cl)
cc
= 0
La
w
0
Z
N.T.S. — IIII
Q RFn
q.
t -
O�®`� a '��P�O .
I v
-
975
SB
U
I LT
4 3 00
SHEET -1
OF 1