HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 Application (Expired)Sketch Plan
P r eI iminar y PIanFinal Plat
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FORM
SUBDIVIS ION NAI{E: 2,/ I fl)C I ,RIWn\JOWNER:
q
ENG I NEER/PLANNBR/S URVEYOR :
Soc,fl,', 75t zaf tpLOCATION: Section
WATER SOURCE:C'l-, waf e r
'gh. Co<,n
, D-/ ue I
Townsh ip
S<t c
S'cLdrtrs'oa
*
Range
0
SEWAGE DISPOSAL METIIOD:
PUBLIC ACCESS VIA:)
EXISTING ZONING:c-L
EASEMENTS : Ut iI itY rtO n t
Ditch ngq€-
TOTAL DEVETOPMENT AREA:
(1)Res ident iaI Number Acres
Single Famiy
DupIexMuIti-familyMobile Home
l2l Commercial
Industr ial
PubI iclQuas i -PubI ic
Open Space/Common Area
TOTAL:
PARKING SPACES:
Res idential
Commercial
Industrial
n
Floor Area Acres
sq
sq
.fr..fr.(3)
(4)
(s)
la
Stewart
RECHYEDSEP 1Zz/drJI
€,abrzo,%l*Zlb's,Jrr.
September 12,200I
Garfield County Building and Planning Department
109 8th st.
Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 881601
RE: 241 Mel Ray Subdivision
Owner:Cinderbetts,LLC
0361 Southside Dr
Basalt, CO 81621
927-3125
Architect:Kirk, Watkins & Associates
204ParkAvenue Suite lD
Basalt, CO 81621
927-8460
Engineer:High Country Engineering
1517 Blake Ave. Suite 101
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
94s-8676
Builder:Stewart Custom Builders, Inc.
0361 Southside Dr.
Basalt, CO 81621
927-3125
Please find enclosed a soils report and drainage calculations, along with six revised sketch plans
Sincerely,
Custom Building . General Contracting . Construction Management
0351 SormrsrorDnrvr. Beselr,CoronaooST62l .970/927-3725. Fex970/927-4905
Duane R.
,REcErvED sEI I 1g
Statements Reqardin Utilities and Gra dinq and Drainase
The property located at24l Mel-Ray Road currently receives water, sewer, natural gas,
telephone, and cable television service. The property receives water service from the City
of Glenwood Springs, sewer service from West Glenwood Sanitation District, electricity
from Glenwood Electric, natural gas service from KN Energy, telephone service from
Qwest, and cable television service from AT&T Broadband. The proposed six-unit
apartment building will be served by the same utilities, and upgraded as needed- There is
no indication that there will be any potential radiation hazards on the site.
Several improvements are proposed for the grading and drainage of this site. These
improvements will prevent impacts to adjacent lots. Improvements proposed include:
curb and gutter. drainage swales, a 6-foot concrete valley pan, a sump drain for the
handicap accessible apartments, and a drywell. There are no on-site or offsite drainage
basins (lakes, streams, etc.) affected by the grading/drainage of this site. Please see the
attached Darinage Study for fuither information.
r)
The Garfield county Planning Department has completed an initial review of the cinderbetts Sketch planapplication and has determinJd mlt itre application is noii, tecr,oiral cgmpliance with our regulations.The application, as submitted is missine a number "ir"fiirla pieces orlnIli*ution. For your assistance,the enclosed checklist should help you"or your represeniatives complete the application.
once your application is determined to be in technical compliance with county Regulations, a meeting datebefore the Planning and Zorungcommission wiil be scneauiei:'"I;;";';;J'#r!r"*ions, please do nothesitate to contact me at 945-9212, attheBuilding and-Hunirg Department.
GARFIELD CO(.TNTY
Building and planning Department
August 2,2000
Stewart Custom Builders
0363 Southside Drive
Basalt, CO 81621
RE: Cinderbetts Sketch plan Application
Dear Mr. Teague
Sincerely,
Mark Bean, Director
Building & Planning Department
enclosure
109 8th Street, Suite 303 945-82l2lfax384-3470 Glenwood Springs, colorado g1601
3:30 SKETCH PLAN REQUIREMENTS
The Sketch Plan application shall include a map clearly representing and identifying
the area in which the project is proposed, adjacent natural and man-made features
and adjacent land owners.
3 .32 The Sketch Plan shall be at a scale of not less than 1":200', and
shall contain, at a minimum, the following information, represented graphically or
as a map note:
_ A Proposed name of the subdivision;
_ B. Location, boundaries and legal description of the project;
_ C Names, addresses and phone numbers of the owner(s), applicant(s),
planner(s) and engineer(s);
_ D Date of sketch map preparation, map scale and a symbol
designating true North;
_ E Topography of the proposed subdivision showing, at a minimum,
five (5) foot contours for terrain with an overall average slope of less than
twenty percent (20%) and at a minimum ten foot (10') contours for terrain
with an overall average slope of over twenty percent (20%), contours
developed by interpolation of U.S.G.S. quadrangle contours are
acceptable;
_ F. General location and dimensions of all existing and proposed lots,
streets, alleys, easements, road rights-of-way, irrigation ditches and water
courses within and immediately adjacent to the proposed development;
-
G Description of any natural or man-made features bordering on or
within the development which may require buffering or screening,
particularly the one hundred (100) year floodplain of any major drainages;
-
H. Vicinity map from a U.S.G.S. quadrangle at a scale of l":2000'
depicting the location of streets, highways and adjacent utility systems
within a minimum of one-half (1/2) mile of the proposed subdivision and
showing the natural drainage courses for streams flowing through the
proposed subdivision with the limits of tributary areas shown where
reasonable; and
I. Land use breakdown including:
l. Existing zoning and proposed zoning changes, if applicable;
2. Total development area;
3. Total number of lots proposed;
4. Total number of dwelling units proposed;
5. Total area ofproposed non-residential floor space;
6. Total number of individual dwelling units proposed for each
structure;
7. Total number of proposed oflstreet parking spaces; and
8. Total proposed density.
3'40 SIIPPLEMENTAL INF ORMATI ON
In addition to the Sketch Plan map, the following supplemental information shall
be submitted, in graphic and/or written form.
A. Source and amount of water supply;
B. Proposed type of sewage disposal;
C. U.S.D,A. Soil Conservation Service soil designations, with
interpretation tables attached;
D. Statement assessing the impact of the proposed subdivision on the
lakes, streams and topography of the site;
E. Statement assessing potential radiation hazards to the site;
F. Evidence that all lots and parcels created by the subdivision will
have access to a public right-of-way, in conformance with the Colorado
State Highway Access Code and applicable County Regulations; and
G. Anticipated source of electricity, natural gas, telephone and cable
T.V. services;
Ecww.ussr 122r,ur
H ) it';lrr rrl'1 l1-p',,r I:ti. ( it'rttt't llrtic:ti. i Iir
5l)lll ( rrrrrrlr Ilo:rrl l-i-i(,lt'ttrtootl Sllrilris. ('olor-:rrio ti1(rlI I
l'ltoItt': ()7{)-()J-i-l(/Sli
i rr...:')71)-tlJ5-iiJ5J
h pgeo,,, !rltgcotech.corri
SIIBSOIL STI.IDY
FOR FOTINDATION DESIGN
PROPOSED APARTMENT BI.IILDING
a4Il{EL RAY ROAD
GARFIELD COTINTY, COLORADO
JOB NO. 101 579
AUGUST 3I, 2OO1
PREPARED FOR:
STEWART CUSTOM BLTILDERS
ATTN: DUANE STEWART
36T SOUTHSIDE DRIVE
BASALT, COLORADO 81621
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHMCAL, INC.
August 31,2001
Stewart Custom Builders
Attn: Duane Stewart
361 Southside Drive
Basalt, Colorado 81621 Job No. 101 579
Subject Report Transmittal, Subsoil Srudy for Foundation Design, Proposed
Apartment Building, 241Mel Ray Road, Garfield County, Colorado
Dear Mr. Stewart:
As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed building at the
subject site.
Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed
building area below the topsoil consist of very stiff sandy clay overlying medium dense
clayey sand and gravel at about 19 feet depth. Dense gravel alluvium was encountered
at about 26 feet depth. Groundwater was encountered in the borings between 24 and 25
feet below the ground surface. The upper soils were generally moist.
The proposed apartment building can be founded on spread footings placed on rhe
natural subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. The
footings should also be designed for a minimum dead load of 800 psf to limit the
potential for heave if the bearing soils become wetted.
The report which follows describes our exploration, summarizes our findings, and
presents our recorlmendations. 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,
HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
Steven L. Pawlak. P.E
Rev. by: DEH
SLP/ksw
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
SITE CONDITIONS
FIELD EXPLORATION
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
FOUNDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
DESIGN RECO MMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
FLOOR SLABS
SURFACE DRAINAGE .
LIMITATIONS
FTGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BOzuNGS
FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS
FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES
FIGURES 4 & 5 - SWELL-CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
TABLE I - SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
1
1
2
2
2
J
J
J
4
5
5
H_P GEoTECH
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ST[,'DY
This report presents the results of a subsoil study for a proposed apartment
building to be located at24I Mel Ray Road, Garfielcl County, Colorado. The project
site is shown on Fig. 1. The puqpose of the study was to develop recommendations for
the foundation design. The srudy was conducted in accordance with our agreement for
geotechnical engineering services to Stewart Custom Builders dated August 10, 2001.
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 apartment building will be a 3 story structure and have six units.
Ground floor will be slab-on-grade or above crawlspace. Grading for the structure is
assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about Z to 4 feet. We assume
relatively light foundation loadings, typical of the proposed type of consrruction.
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 Grorecu
1-L-
SITE CONDITIONS
The site was occupied by a double wide trailer with fenced side and backyards at
the time of our field work. There was lawn and scattered trees surrounding most of the
trailer. The driveway was along the south side from Mel Ray Road. The property is
relatively flat with a gentle slope down to the south and about 5 feet of elevation
difference.
FIELD EXPLORATION
The field exploration for the project was conducted on August 22,2001. Two
exploratory borings were drilled at the locations shown on Fig. I to evaluate the
subsurface conditions. Drilling access was not possible to the backside of the property
due to the fenced yards. The borings were advanced with 4 inch diameter continuous
flight augers powered by a truck-mounted Longyear BK-51HD drill rig. The borings
were logged by a representative of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc.
Samples of the subsoils were taken with 17e inch and 2 inch I.D. spoon
samplers. The samplers were driven into the subsoils at various depths with blows
from a 140 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.
SIIBSI.IRFACE C ONIDITIONS
Graphic logs of the subsurface conditions encountered at the site are shown on
Fig. 2. The subsoils consist of about lVz feet of topsoil overlying very sriff sandy clay
to a depth of about 19 feet where medium dense clayey sand and gravel was
H.P GEoTECH
-3-
encountered. Dense slightly silty sandy gravel alluvium with cobbles and boulders was
encountered at a depth of about 26 feet.
Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included
natural moisture content and density, and unconfined compressive strength. Results of
swell-consolidation testing performed on relatively undisrurbed drive samples of the
clays, presented on Figs. 4 - 5, indicate low compressibility when loaded under
existing moisture conditions and a minor to low expansion potential when wetted.
The laboratory testing is summarizedin Table I.
Free water was encountered at a depth of about 24 to 25 feet. The upper soils
were generally moist.
FOTINDATION BEARING CONDITIONS
The upper clays are very stiff and can support lightly loaded spread footings.
There could be some potential for heave if the bearing soils become wetted.
Precautions should be taken to limit the effects of potential heave to foundations and
floor slabs.
DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
FOUNDATIONS
Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory borings and
the nafure of the proposed construction, we recommend the building be founded with
spread footings bearing on the natural clay soils.
The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a
spread footing foundation system.
1) Footings placed on the undisrurbed natural clay soils should be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. The footings should
also be designed to impose a minimum dead load of 800 psf. Based on
experience, we expect movement of footings designed and constructed as
H-P GEorEcH
-4-
2)
3)
4)
5)
discussed in this section wilr be about 1 inch or less. There could be
some additional movement if the bearing soils become wetted.
The footings should have a minimum width of l6 inches for continuous
walls and i8 inches for isolated pads.
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.
continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span
an unsupported length of at least 12 feet and help limit the effects fo
some differential movement. Foundation walls acting as retaining
structures should also be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure
corresponding to an equivalent fluid unit weight of 55 pcf.
All existing fill, debris from the existing development topsoil and any
loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level
extended down to the stiff natural clay soils.
A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing
excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions.
6)
FLOOR SLABS
The upper clay soils possess an expansion potential and there could be some slab
heave if the subgrade soils become wetted. Slab-on-grade construction can be used
provided precautions are taken to limit the effects of potential heave and the risk of
some distress is understood by the building owners. Crawlspace and structural slab
should be considered to avoid potential slab heave problems. 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
controljoints 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 slip joint should be provided
H-P Georecs
5
at the bottom of non-load bearing interior walls so that potential heave of the slab is not
transmitted to the upper structure.
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
should consist of the imported granular soil (similar to road base).
SURFACE DRAINAGE
The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and
maintained at all times after the building has 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 957o 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
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.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of
all backfill.
5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at
least 5 feet from foundation walls.
LIMITATIONS
This srudy 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
H-P GEoTECH
-6-
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
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 - PA CAL, INC
Steven L. Pawlak,
Reviewed by
Daniel E. Hardin, P.E
SLP/ksw
cc: High Country Engineering - Attn: Roger Neal
H-P GeorecH
APPROXIMATE SCALE1' : JO'
7 H')
5734
I
I
5736 5737
5733 5735
I
I
I
I
l/ttttII
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5733 1
I 5738
II
),'
I
I
I
I
I
I
5734
1
\I
/BoRrNG2 / /
I
I
5736- 57J5 5737 s738
MEL RAY ROAD
tlll
PRO?OqED
BUrfrN9
I
.l
ORING
I
I
lB
'r01 579 HEPWORTH_PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1
BORING 1
ELEV.= 5737'
BORING 2
ELEV.= 5735.5'
5740 5740
5735 5735
'15/12
wC=16.4
DD=115
16/12
5730 32/12
WCF16.5
DD=l18
5730
5725
21/12
WC-14.5
DD=119 13/12
rc-i9.3
DD=llO
UC=5600
5725
ooU-
I
o
o
otr
42/12
o
4,L
I
cI
o
o
lrJ
5720 15/12 5720
27 /12
5715 41h2 5715
o.2:
0
5710 5710
10/1:t5/O
5705 15/3,10/O 5705
5700 5700
Note: Explonotion of symbols is shown on Fig' 3-
101 579 H EPWORTH _ PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL. INC.LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2
LEGEND:
TOPSOIL; orgonic silty sondy cloy, moist, block.
CLAY (CL); sondy, very stiff, moist, medium browq low to medium plosticity.
Hg
ts.....1
IiE]
ffi
SAND AND GRAVEL (SC-GC); cloyey, medium dense, moist to wet with depth, mixed brown
GRA\EL AND COBBLES (GM-GP); slightly silty, sondy, proboble smoll boulders, dense, wet, brown,
rounded rocks.
Relotively undisturbed drive somple; 2-inch l.D. Colifornio liner somple.
1
I
I Drive somple; stondord penetrotion test (SPT), 1 3/8 inch l.D. split spoon somple, ASTU D-1586.r
Drive somple blow count; indicotes thot 15 blows of o 140 pound hommer folling 50 inches were5/12 required to drive the Coiifornio or SPT sornpler 12 inches-
+ Free woter level in boring ond number of dolns following drilling meosurement wos token.
Depth of which boring hod coved when checked on August 24, 2OO1-
NOTES:
1. Explorotory borings were drilled on August 22,2OO1 with s 4-inch diqmeter continuous flight power ouger.
2. Locotions of explorotory borings were meosured opproximotely by pocing from feotures shown on the site
plon provided.
J. Elevotions of explorotory borings were obtoined by interpolotion between contours on the site plon provided
4. The explorotory boring locotions ond elevotions should be considered occurote only to the degree implied
by the method used-
5. The lines between moteriols shown on the explorotory boring logs represent the opproximote boundories
between moteriol tlpes ond tronsitions rnoy be groduol.
6. Woter level reodings shown on the logs were mode of the time ond under the conditions indicoted.
Fluctuotion in woter level moy occur with time.
7. Loborotory Testing Results:
WC:WoterContent(%)
DD = Dry Density ( p"f )
UC = Unconfined Compressive Strength ( p"f )
101 579 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3
bq
co'6coo-x
UJ
I
E
.9oaq)t-o-
EoO
1
0
1
2
5
0.1 1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
100
bq
E
.9(r,coo-x
UJ
I
c
.o(r,
o,ol-o-
Eo(J
1
0
,l
2
3
1.0 'to
APPUED PRESSURE - ksf
100
Moisture Content : 16.4
Dry Density : 115
Somple of:Sondy Cloy
From:Boring 1 of 2.5 Feet
percent
Pcf
(
\)
Exponsron
uPon
wetting
Moisture Content : 14.5
Dry Density = 119
Somple of: Sondy Cloy
From:Boring 1 of 10 Feet
percent
Pcf
\r \
Exponsion
upon
wetting
0-1
10'l 579 H EPWORTH _ PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4
Moisture Content = 16.5
Dry Density = 118
Somple of: Sondy Cloy
From: Boring 2 of 5 Feet
percen t
pcf
,No movement
uPon
wetting
0
N
c
.9oooo
Eo
C)
1
2
3
'1.0 10
APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf
1000.1
101 579 HEPWORTH _ PAWLAK
GEOTECHNICAL, INC.SWELL CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5
o
o
co
@
g
G
Etsov:loo9@E
u
@ o
(,)
C(oo
o
C)
Coa
o
c)
Ec
tu
@
^qH>rzol
=o9-z=A@OEEqosFz=@JO
oo(o
(f)
q
ts
E)
0EUEduFF
o
;HA<=:
d-
_-L^
Eoo120uHg]Eu-<9@
zo
tr
Eo
oz3<ga
Jr>?<&
<aE>!=
=x9B<--u-zt
rJ)o)@ o
EJU^
;929<ooz=o
t(o
to
+
LO
d
(r?
o)
zo
tr
o
u
E
EEo-
(,z
oE
s
N
o LO o
N
o')r.
r.r)
o
oz
mo-)
aF)f
QL!
u
Fa
gF
CC-o[T.J F;<UF
<L -)Fco
J
LLo
E.
=(n
Uz
j
Iz
o
IIJFo
uJ(.,
J
=o-
I
F
E,o
=o-
lrJ
5!" '
' ,REcg\trt] sm r z zM
Reviewed bY:
Roger D. Neal. P.E.
Project Manager
I, Roger D. Neal, P.E., certify that the proposed design, constructed in conformiry
with engineered plans and details, will not cause damage to adjacent or downstream
properties resutting from erosion, flood or environmental impact during construction-
and after completion. This statement is not valid for storm events outside design
parameters or circumstances beyond my control'
DRAINAGE CALGULATIONS
Mel-Ray
APARTMENTS
GLENWOOD SPRIAIGS, CO
HCE JOB NO. 20i rc74.59
August 29,2001
(
Edward R. White, E.I
Design Engineer
k:\wp\20 I \ I 074\draimge.doc
1517 Blake Avenue Suite l0l
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Telephone (970) C+5-8676 - Fax (970) 945'2555
l4 [nverness Drive East Suite B-14'1
Englewood, CO 80112
Telephone (303) 9254544 - Fax (3O3) y254517
SECTION
INTRODUCTION
HYDROLOGY
DRAINAGE PLAN
SUMMARY
DRAWINGS
APPENDIX:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Vicinity Map (8.5" x 1 1")
Grading and Drainage Plan ( I I "x 17")
Calculations
PAGE
I
1
1
1
Introduction
The proposed property improvement is located at24l Mel-Ray Road in Glenwood
Springs. Colorado. This project proposes the construction of a six-unit apartment building
on an existing lot. See the enclosed Viciniry Map for site location.
Hydrology
The hydrologic methods used for this stud1,' are outlined in the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) publication ''Procedures for Determining Peak Flows in Colorado" (1980). Peak
on-site flows in this area will be derived primarily from rainfall because the site is belorv
8000 t'eet in elevation. Because of this. the storm drainage system should be adequate to
handle on-site spring snowmelt runoff. This site does not fall within a Federal Emergency
Nlanagement Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map boundary.
Drainage PIan
The drainage basin for this study was taken as the surveyed area. Stewart Custom
Builders provided the proposed planimetrics. All storm water runoff from the proposed
building, foundation. and paved parking areas will be captured and directed into the
proposed drywell. The detention volume required is based on the volume needed to lower
the peak from the 1OO-year runoff under proposed conditions to match the 100-year
runoff from the basin's natural conditions. The general storm water runoff patterns are
sho'um on the enclosed Grading and Drainage Plan, along with the general location of the
proposed drywell. Despite the dryw'ell size being based on the 1OO-year storm. acceptable
overflow paths should be provided. Overlot grading shall ensure that drainage is directed
a*'ay from the building in all directions. Erosion control measures should be followed
during construction to insure that adjacent sites are not impacted from sedimentation.
Summary
Drainage for 241Mel-Ray Road has been designed to mitigate the expected impacts of
storm water runoff as outlined by the City of Glenwood Springs drainage regulations.
Appendix
Prolect Job. No.zol to14 ot
By E/\'1,,/oei.e 8/t5/e!-
5t."7-
Ck'd by
-
Date
o'",tadzSubject Page I of
fofa.t
".- e oh
f; re-ct =
.l f nl',Lr'C
tor:c C
,aboSet
t'CL*,5ltno ( H
P3.Z-5 o I
f (rz1 .87J)7 (s $s 'gLt)Q+:; . 15
Peo:(!f t 8z
8.1
521
i
I3_18"L... /ir:
,d4 o,3gr
AH
'rc
)
lt.1 , L3n',th = llZ 5t
"r!',rn = 5 *f
/tre l, C eacen
Le
A Ei:,,
L-t l-,ere4
L= LenlTh i .: .,,)'e.<
AH-e-El*rr.t,'t.' ln
!t.o,3gr
6
aJ-
=-L
a
cZk
$orgz o 7 l-eZ{!r fe{;r> = 2,V ',.)r
Ihr ?/. f/c'..'" iq CCPgt
lco yr
-c
2rl t-2. oi .-
c Pec, {
= l, e?"
- I '?7'/
tt b)]- ( P?t,
20
)
'/r firer.vL)sirc C
'c0
+ Z€/.,t
>- h 4s.-. - / 7 e7
-) t,r = (' ,-fl( p6or1t,")l,o7;.,L
)
q =Q , fi.e"iLy Lpecx
7 mt -c.'/o3 ds
Z) Q,'a
1?o c;*\{-l-ll .a /\
I
2
=)z - c. tlbs C
5Zga
aL ICO (t ,1 ,,,),Lloe
GLE\'/v000 SPRiNcS, C0
923 Ccoper Ave . Gienwocd Sornqs CC 1 601
ENGLEWOOD, CO
1J Inverness Dnve East. Suite D-136 . Erolewood C0 90.112
GRAND JUNCTION CC
(-q70) e5a-0935
Project Job. No.
GLEN'//OOD SPRINGS CO
923 Cocoer Ave ' Glenwocd SDriras CC alall
DaagfiSlkl-Ck'd by
ENGLEWOOD CO
'14 lnverness Drive East. Surte 0-136 . Engle,ruood CA AA112
By EBut Date
GRAND JUNCTION, CC
(970) 858-0935
Subjecr Or"; ^ot* 5fr4 pase Z of
cose.
-rla1cf"i Hrea= lo6o5 rtz
L
I C""J , t;,
,v
tloo, qB 'l t1rL)
z
{
Lo u Jr:rng" I
I
zto
q5
8q
I toozrof
.a1 *c
5t
G n, €,t t,ra !;c, ,t
Le-jth1= IHZ
dlletnt:" ^. 2 5
t'"t !tc
(5
3."r --l
- >:{'
ltt -., ( tu>!:*:),
- ' / \ t ''
=. | ,lr^ s
-T"=c.oZl ) Ute T*
-Te-r l i F:,. ,, :- t;
fl-t'€a')
I
1?-p"ok=
?':' "t |"'l?
2-oa :, c'
IOClri
?,2 /:
7 zJ tt
ZLj n r
24 \.
I l, o?'l
= l.zl t'
-. Ft. -l
I
,?r
i
Iqt
'.+5
aLtOt = O, 7 o'l cgs
J
?
o,6 3'Q cJS
Project Job.No.M
By ER ul oateS/tjleL- ckd by
-
pqts
Subject eage ) ot
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO
923 Cooper Ave . Glenwood Springs C0 81601
i-. _ ,:
",c
:::: ,- _
ENGLEWOOD. CO
14 In/erness Drive East. Suite D-136 . Englewood C0 80112
GRANO JUNCTION, CO
(970) 858-0935
.,-^ 147 1114 t-,,
fio,ts
,,-jPc; L rt t?Ct^ v't 5'r,3 ,rt.a ; fr's { IJI
f,.1hgr'e fi Ca Yt
C,iJ;
tola.C 5a
+L {aot-I C
fisSu*
I
tmp# 1 . txt
Basin Output
Pond Name
Dist.ribution Type
Frequency Type
Area
Peak Inflow ...
Peak Outflow ..
Runoff
Runoff Volume
Storage Volume
Maximun Storage
Type II
100 years
10605.0000 fr2
.1112 cfs
Elevation
1 650 566
375.1685
0.0000 fr
.460
.866
cfs
in
0
6
Z
0
0
1
fr3
fE3
Page 1
:'o
ao-o
o
c
o)o
G't
@
3o
o)-oq
a
'a
(!)
-o
.C,
o-o:o
0)
(o
o
a,
oz-
ooo{
N$-f-U)o=rO))o<N
0)-o=s8
aCo
(tr
=(J=
Gt() I.U
c)
=-o
q.)
F(n
9qo)@
-lfl
ol
3lzlol
-dd(El
u.ilJ
"g_ta,
(ol
LJd
.ol
CIg
a,B
el
Edd
.et
(5l
=ld
d
C,
-UbIto-
j>Ifi]>(,
oooooo)
otr-
=o;>=a
q)
q)
ooooooCCCCEC
o6 EaEi"r (r) Lo F- o) r c.)sioc"i<crcic"jN(OTLOO)tf@rrC!NN(OCD
:: o^
o
=i)>d
(oNcoqf\a
SsSE$SE
:oc
=.o>.ii5sgO-gd
^ (o (e o, .o e.r oQ
Xo;Odccicci>
-rCOtf)f'*Or;-
ccqeqqqqrororolr)lr)tr)rossvrir:f$$
-
LQo3E-oU)t5
b.o-
-Coo>o
o)
SoopF
o>
6
ro'1 \qqqq^; c\l rr) o) N (o o,YJoN\f1.-o)rl-rr--r(\
o_I9cE(6o
lfg-oO
cOC.)NTOO)@cid+c"ic.i cio,O) tf) r F.- (O O, STNOCDACSlr)
-Ei o^
o o-o>cDS()(OF--cOO'
o
c)
-oo.E
o
-G-Co\o-^e9v
^o5
o;o*,oi5>
'64
9+(:D -tsE--c3
h'odm
Uv€6qp2N
Ed
OC!o
I l,oE.=F*f .g c.)oq)>o
Fig ure S- I Pook Dischorge in
csm Per inch of Runoff
Versus
Time of Concenlrotion, Tc
Type I I Storm Distribution
Type I l-A Storm Distribution
o.{ 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.t o.9 I
Time of Concentrotion Tc - Hours
o 43 7
a7t
lo
eoo
aoo
700
600
300
400
500
!
.E '*
c
!l
C)
I
3,'*rr eOoEtoo
.o 70
oEo
xo60o(L
ao
!o
1
{
t
I
?o
to z 45
n
.,
{
+r-+++
-
rlti J-rr-l-
I
.trlr,i
lrli
::-1+
++
+
___-l--r--t*
--1-+---.1---]-+
-#-l--l-l-r----1-l-r--r-
-_)---!l-| +J_
--1-----!-l-r!-l-
__r _ ----!-l_
rll
I lll
o.l o.z OJ
l2
to
Table2-2.--Rrnoffcurvenr::lbersforselectedagriculturali,
urban land use. (Antecedent moisture condition II' and I"
2-5
suburban, and
= 0.2s)
I/ for a rclc dctaltctl ttelcrtptlon of s€rlcul'tural land urc curv' nuobero refer to
[ettoaat krglneertng x*ii'**l'-s""til" u, Itvdrorog/, chapter 9' Aua. 1972'
3/ Cooa cover le protcctcd froo grazlng and lltter and brulh cov'r toll'
!/ Clrrr. nuEbcrr are coEPuted asturllng the.runoff froo the hourc and dr''vevay
ts dirccted to,arac-tic itre'L vtth a trlnltruE of rcof vatcr 'llrcctetl
to lavna
vhcrc adtltlona.]. ldftltratton coulil occur'
!/ ftr. r.ErlDlng Derarlou! arcac (hvn) rrc conrlilcred to ba ln good D'ttulc coadltlon
for thaaa cuFa Dl8bar' '
!/ In ror vlrDr cltErtor of thr countr7 e curvc nuabcr of 95 ory b' urad'
FTDROI.OCIC SOIL GROUP
DBcALAI{D USE DESCBIPTION
88
?8
9I
8I
8I
?I
72
6z
Cultlvated Lana!/: slthout conservatlon treattrent
: vlth conservetlon treetEent
89
8o
86
?tr
't9
5r
58
39
Pasture or rangc ).and: poor condltton
gootl conditlon
?I ?8,830Meadov: Sood coadltlon
83
77
7'l
70
66
55
Lt
25
tlood or Foreet land: thln stand' Poor covcrt no uulch
good co'er3/
?lr 8o
8L
5I39
L9
Cpen Space8, Iavns, Perks' Solf courseg' celoeterles' etc'
good condltlon: Srass cover on 797 ot uore of the 6rea
areafoto75onI,0Ia5cove+condl !onfair gr
ft
9ll 959289coEocrci.al antl buglneaa areas (85I inpewlous)
9r 93888rInduatrlal atlstrlcts (?21 tnpervlous)
92
87
85
85
8lr
90
83
8I
8o
't9
'l'l
6r
,'l
5L
,1
85
1'
72
?0
68
Bcel.dentlal: !/
Aver!8e lot slze
1/8 acre or less
1/lr acre
l/3 acre
1/2 rcre
1 acrc
o)
38
30
?,
20
Averlge t ropervlous!/
989898Paveit ptrklng lotr, roofa, drivcvayri rtc 2l
98
91
89
98
89
@
98
16
'12
98
8,
82
Strect! aad roadr:
paveat vlth curb! and etora eeterei/
gravel,
Alrt
J
1
lncha3
0
1
10
11
L2
13
14
15
16
t7
18
19
20
N0TE: Runolf value detetmined by equation Q =
RUNOFF FOR TNCHES OF RAINFALL
L{toc
( P-0.2 S)2
P+ 0.8 S
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
CURVE
87
0.9
0. 1?
0.83
1.65
2.55
3.q8
4.43
5. 39
6. 36
7.33
g,3l
e.3c
10. 2e
I I.27
12.26
L3.25
L4.Ztt
15.-23
t6.23
L7.22
L8.22
I9.21
REFERENCE: National Engineering Handbook, Section 1, HYDR0L0GY
0.8Tanthr0.4 0.5 0.6 0.70.0 0.1 0.2 0.3
0.05 0.0 9 0.130.00 0.cI 0.02
0.61 0.68 0.75o.22 0.28 0.3 0.40 0.4 0. 54
1.48 1.570. 9l 0. 99 r. 15 l. 3l 1.40
2. 19 2.2e 2.37 2.461.74 1.83 I.92 2. 01 2.10
3. I0 3.20 3.29 3.392.64 2.7 3 ?.8?2.92 3.Ct
4 .04 4.14 4 .23 q.33).57 3 .66 ).7 6 3.85 3.e5
5.294.9C tr.00 5.10 5. 194.52 4 .62 4.7L q. 81
6.06 6.16 6.265.48 5.58 5.68 ,.77 ( o?5 .97
7.Ltl 7 .236.55 6.65 6.75 5.84 6. 94 7.0q6.tt5
8.02 8.12 8.217.t13 7 .53 7. 63 7.72 7 .82 7.92
9 .00 e. tc 9.20E.4l 8.5I 8. 6l 8. 7I 8.80 8. 90
1C. t89. 89 9.99 10.o89.39 9.49 9. 5g 9. 69 9-79
11.1710. 7I T ,J. 87 t0.e7 I1.07I0.38 10.48 10.5e IC.68
12.06 I2.16.37 .q7 .57 11.67 I l.7o t t.6 r1.96
13.r5t2.85 I2.e5 I3.C5I2.36 12.46 2.56 12.66 L2.75
1rr . 1413.84 I3.9C I {.041f.35 13.45 13.55 13.65 r3.?5
15.I414. 84 I4.94 15.0414.34 Iq.(4 14.54 4.64 L4.7 tt
15.91 16.03 16. t315.33 [5.43 15.53 15.63 15.7 3 I5.83
16.92 17.02 17.12I6.33 16.43 16.53 16.63 16.7 3 I6. 82
18.02 le.l2L7.12 L7.q2 L7 .52 17.62 17.72 L 7.82 L7 .e2
19.1IIb.81 t8.91 te.0i18.32 18.42 18.52 18. 62 18.7t
67
fiWsTl*.'.'j:H$,t*t
CURVE
95
RUNOFF FOR INCHES OF RAINFALL
ziyr lO0yr
0.9lnchr!
9
10
11
L2
13
14
15
16
t7
18
19
20
N0TE: Runoff value determined by equation Q -
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
o. 48
1.39
2.lrt
).71
4.)2
5.31
6.3I
7 .3C
8. 30
9. 3C
I0.29
11.29
12.29
1 3;29
14.29
L5.29
16.28
17.29
18.2e
19.28
(P-0.2 S)2
P+ 0.8 S
I
REFERENCE: l{ational Engineering Handbook, Section 4, HYDROL0GY
Trothr 0.80.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.70.0
L.7 O.2t 0.32 0 .400.0 c.05 c
1.01 l.lr 1.20 1.296c.65 c.83
r,. 96 2.06 2.I6 2.251.48 l.5g I.77
2.q5 2.55 2.65 2.7 4 2.eq 2.94 3.04 3.lq 3.23
3. 93 4.02 4.I2 ti.223.43 1.53 J.63 3.7 3 l.ei
4.92 5.C t 5.TI ,.2Lq.42 tt.52 t .62 4.7 2 q.e2
5 .41 5. 71 5.eI 5.9L 6.01 6.lI 6.2I5.5I 5.61
6. 90 7.00 7.10 ?.206.41 6.5I 6. 6l 6.70 6.8C
9.20.40 7. 50 7. 60 7 .70 7.ec 7. 90 I .0,)g.l0
e .0c g.lc 9 .208 .40 8. 50 8. 60 8. 70 8.80 8. 90
t).4 9. g9 9.99 10.09 10.1990999.69 9.79
10.39 I C.49 I0.?e rC.89 I0.9e 11.09 I I.190.59 0.69
12.09 I2.19I r.39 [ 1.49 t L.5e I1.69 ll.7e iI.89 ll.ee
9lr989.99 13.09
1q.19I1.39 I 3.49 [ 3. 5')I3.69 i1.79 r. 3. 89 13.9e 14.09
I5.1914.39 L4 .49 lzr.59 14.69 14.?9 I q. 89 4.99 I5.09
I6.1815.39 [ 5.49 15.59 I5. 'J9 15.79 1r.89 15.99 16.08
I6.l8 16.48 16.58 16.68 16.78 i u.88 l6.e?17.0e 17.18
18.18I7.38 17.48 1.7.53 I7.68 I7.78 i7.88 17.98 18.08
19.188.38 1e.48 18.58 1e.68 18.73 I e. 88 18.98 19.0e
19.39 19.48 L9.5iJ Ie.88 t9.e8 20.0a 20.t819.68 Le.78
,ffi ffi#
7S
20.28
SU BJTCT
PROPTRTY
q
4
I 9
2
,o
+sr
Htu
E
I
n
g I g
IJ
14n ST.
t t5B Sf-g
q
I
I
t7 LO g
1B
c 29il sT
HIGII COUNTRY ENGNEEBI}IG, INC.
923 CIOPEB AIENUE
STEWARI CUSTOM BUILDERS
GARFIELD COUNIY. COLORADO
i/ELRAY q.EOIYEIOT{
VICI{TY IIAP
1 "=2000 VICINITY
Pt-loNE,DES. ERW CK rILE NO.
2011074
SHEET
lFAX' (970) 945-2555 DR ERW DATE 8-16-01
,i .rLi/ r/,' lU ,iU ,.,, c)UU1
N 0i'5):2'O ci" t,
/ lt O()
.,9
/"
,,I' tt
.a
(l)
Cx
t^'\
(^
j
O
m
,U
1)ortn
.-_.\xonH lY
|.t)
E:
e5
o
:E
.)
u
-
(rl
(i)
(-r
t'
(..1
Ir)
t"""
I" "'l
(.1 I
J
i
I
N
iO
t
l'.
i\
UJ()
s 01 '51 '53" w /5 OO'
c)25.o'
tt
t
I
I
iti
Ilr
aa
99
8C
;;.xi,-3c888qfi1flflffqEr::96rl 9C;l ? 8g
,
!
a
vi
(!
N
!
9)
bi
:
I
(,]+
$
(,
(,!
UI
!
G
(!
.t
(-n
(n
(.J
--J
i; ..
(!
tt,\]'i:.(,
O)
(,IA
N'
llDllu
{, }{
(!
--J
U]c)
o(,
I
I
I
sI Cn{U(,
I
i
I
t
,.'.,!:' .
rl
I
I
c<i"-obL)
T)-;=F1 1mNrnrnrryftryfrrhl-mr
FEPmI.rrl
--{Oi6zo27"
i
I
J'
GI(,)
o)
(!
(!
o)
(D
LJ
(n
9)(()
1
I
!
{()
)J
tla
'n
O
fJ
rrl
c)
tr1
C)Tl
%o'l
Aru
lls
o
ll-
US
t,-.\
tsd€r5zo
GLTNWOOO SPRIN6S. CO
IvIELRAY SUBDMSION
GRADI{G PLAN
t';\F€-l0l COUI{IRY Eto\f,Eillo. nC.
o2a @oPEn AtE {rE
Cr-ENlaroOO 8Ff\8. @ E6Ol
Fn(970) 945-CO76 Ff(e70) 945-2556
RTMSIONDts
FI a:
DB
DATI
CK.
tnw
GRI
tRw
9- 7-0r
RON
\.)ii.)i\l'trr.rJ\rlU1\ tui,i\uwg15i,1 Uwq M0, Sep 10 1b. JJ 4i 2001
N ()1'1).)'()9"
t:
/lt Ot)
lf,
IBlzlo
I
I
I
i
J
I
]
'/i
1
p
B
{IU
I
g
li
I
x
I
I
14
,-ri -
11.44'(o
Ol
UI
il!
;; .-- -.-'---
-1
i!
jl
44'
L
!i
I
6
N
!
h
o O),
It
frl
t
t,
)J(!
(!
L
fr
7
o
t
!O
b
a
n(,
rnrrn
=loz
7 4', --.-_ __
t
tr
cl,
't I
10
32
(!I
N
NJ
d
(,
/
-l-
3t,t(,
(.)l,t
()o
(,)
A)
->
Irli_
)J()
(l
trz
(x) .r.(rr (oA (,{
NJoP+(,
cf,
taz
o)EUroFli
N(,Nix(,
Ftz
col'G(I)(ONPs..Ln
C)0o
n)
,]J
!o-I't
1)z
()O)I'?
(x(o
(ir
()J
(_^
:-(^
j
ar)o
l/)
(Ir
( r)
,:
(^l
i
o
7l
o
a.)-f5
lr-tlooooood
l+
t - t' T - - f,
1"""()
-'..-i
(..tt >zzo:tc(:m
>q)mrrFlm-()LIO,r .IJ
OOrqznn<9mZO-Zl{Or, rn -.t|rr'6>
$ * q ilE
: i 3 -loi . il ,lg
n - Alr- n - nt83 816INIJ," f; ldri iii lg,>UC)..
..o
OC]
I
UI
azz,CC
'.,cJo
a] /)
l,t () ()
a-oralz
I
I..rO,Oum(:
q1r
UUC)
oxr
az{oztrlc)r6a-!(-
ZOOm-l6AC.z1)IiC)Oa!\()a
NO
UI
OAL
tn,()
J
6
a)
C]o
Cn
T
o
L
la
(!
(t)
zo
-{-Tl
of,
ooz
U)
{f,CoJoz
I
F
N
i
O.
25 O',Ftz
coA(, (o+NiO}'
a
(,
s 01.51,5J"
/tt.OO'
))
Olt
t
I
DAIEDIS
c(.
DR
fRw
IIDN
ERW
O6 D
tsp
zio{-'5z o l)^'rE 8- ?9- OtMASIEE UIUTY PLAN
CLTNWOOD SPRINCS, CO
I/IELRAY STJBDII/ISION
8I1E PLAN
llol CO{.,NrFy Etg\EEmo 0rC
E23 @OPE8 AVEilFo_El.rarooo 8PtlG. @ ssolPH(970) C45-6070 Fx(e7o) 94s_2a$FrtE: Spl
u \SU:,r,r,liUJ\;tu1\1U/,1\riwg\Utt.rtwg Fr,r Sep 0/ 15.,r8 Jll i1001
I
g
Q
I
c
.A
--__1
-l
$ioa
F$
?
L
g;
Bhe6
;i
oa_
tfr
rF
EilI
EfrS
5HF
I'6
8Ed
iFF'El1
ciql
el
aI
xd
lololzlolr
l=
t,
;lH
l=t>
l5lm
IE
il I
I
I
'i:
l
lP
?
I
r{I
efl<g'
l-oh
H
t;lzlo
l:crn
l--
loln
l:
lrrl
IF tfi
I
I
tc
i
F
!
I
'c
d
8
F
e
9
2
?
99
l9
igr iE { '
F E! BF
';'; ;; II H ;. !\,,-894 : :E ia !lri;:tsai F 9r <; rA:!$'.rc8", 9;o I't
5A
9S
r9
n
0
h0.
,0
0,
ooo
EH?
5HE
x'd
BIT' <8cl
q.i
3l
l4
oP
f;;
,_l L iti
i
II
.A
I
lolnlolala
.to;l>
t:lr-tl;l;
dEI
B;
d;al:B
i3
;h
t2'
o
0
I
v
6"
o
-l
@
E
15l-bt,l-
l>D
ai
Z(]
nU
C)Cn
@
k
C)C
-l--l
TNn
o
Iol
I
T@
Oo<fr
@()
Acmtr
oozIzc
a
o@>
nnI
tt
I
a
e
E!
c
i
J:I
!it
P{il
Pg
ad3r
ti
trieu
r
-
zoo
!
--
-.t
-t)
o
n
!
3Tl{
c
rl
I
d
p
t
I
I
d
q
P
a
tr5da'5s
I
B
{
I
EE!
tr66
-8
ix
tll
I
7
?
9i!E..'
aq lH
irc6l
tsfi q:
6E 6l
6n'iin
xI
I
iIY6
iB
9g
8H
Ir
lrlmln
ls
l2
ln
1.,lo
l=
lm
lr>
l-rlo
l=l!l>lr
EP
t-
ed
3
I
F
!
F H
I
cotr
Bq.8iF
F5i
9,r4
^,4!i.l!r3
6fi'
P
c'
3
a
?
e
B
E
il!E
ig:t
Eins
cI x;
iiil
;xl
g3
ta
!,
DIS
DR
t Rr{
tRW
oa !
BflI '-r5zo
GLTNWOOO SPRINGS. CO
MELRAY SIJEDUIS}ON
DETAL STIEET
l€'{ COIJNTFi ETOEEE\n. NC
E23 @OPEfl AIEM,Ect-E IIVOOO 8pr\8. CO SrOrft((e70) e45_lo76 FX.(e7o) c45 2556
CK,
frLt:
OAIt
RDN
0[I
9-7-01