The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutApplication- PermitJob Address GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING, SANITATION and PLANNING DEPARTMENT 109 8th. Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601(970) 945-8212 Nature of Work Building Permit Use of Building_ f °dT� 44i Owner No. 7403 3� CiAkfai L Le_k_ 0,04c0 7 J Contractor Amount of PermitS 706 06 yg-to-404...6-e,L.---- 027 Date `�f6v .lG,/999 Clerk GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION GARFIELD COUNTY (GLENWOOD SPRINGS), COLORADO I ELEPHONE: (970) 945-8212 PERMIT NO. q 03 INSPECTION UNE: (970) 945.9159 PARCEL/SCHEDULE NO. JOB ADDRESS: 1 LOT NO. BLOCK NO. SUBDIVISION ON I 7216 K-I6Mt" P ---'--- L. 3:), ( S- cowry( WIL Mt 3 1MeTtilk- Co —. ARC7tTELT i7JG1NEE1 f ....1.: ADDtIa"la 6/ , ' :ti ' ,4 ior t70 `jt,, ''ta 4 i2 Jou(T7AA.) LI ? • grovz Lie ND: 1 Ft. D.atttn_ — 2 �, 71,47 >Q FT. OF LOT y a yo s c %J 7 -Per 1113afr 361 '1 s No, or moons f co - 6 VSE Or aL9LpfO Ai le i- / .v e 7 8 LAX' 1� , _.... _. �{ L�.1►c.i71IJ i .. ce' .,.. — ..�.. DALTDUTION ONOVE OPJENOve CLAM Or WO/UC OADOMON 9 i` f1ARA1x OSINOLE 0001111/2VAd L2 VAPORY aaQ+i 0001/RLE 10 - �y 7 DRzvIwAv pm.= DON MTt WHAG'd 06003AL ASW lC1 CIYTEFLAN 7-3 J ('r VALUATION OF ,0011X. $ () AMSTED VAVAT ON:a ODd ?, .E/ I r y arEttocoNDmQNi /jou rvn19T/C !=iris' SAT /NPiZ /tit s ys p -i RT"avin/r/7 A-02 iMr"7 //aCR,C9- . /04 [ O [. ✓i/L D, Ak91,17 P ,3iI41-1//7 0i 62, ID q 6witcog?. qq NOTICE A SEPARATE. ELECTRICAL. PER.StT IS REQUIRED AND MUST BE ISSUED BY TI -IE STATE OF COL CRAD° THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION ALTHOPJZED LS NOT CO\CttENCED WITHIN 150 DAYS. OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK 1S SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FORA PERIOD OF 150 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK 15 CO\D (ENCED. I HEREBY CERTIFY' THAT 1 HAVE RHI READ AND E-XAMfl ED TS APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WFIETHER SPECIFIED HEREIN a • NOT. THME E GRANTING OFA PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE ALT t 1-1 TO V +LATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LO A. •GL' ATING CONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF / Co �I //, r 1 a ��77//// PL'�NCHECK FEE �/ % r, �I rye PERMIT FELE:.4" +/ 25 7711 LJ f TOTAL FEE''��' /, rv , / ? 1/ t o) /, ({ '/i� DATE PERMIT ISSUED: CONST. TYPE: OCC. GROUP: IS- 8 57 S -/ / �---t' ZONG: IN SETBACKS: S' ,..'! 'of Owper. Contactor or authorized agent having read and ntdetst nonce above. IP1Ya L A/4_ /! irly '/ // M N J. HOME: ISDS NO. do FEE: _.—...., _AA n lding Dept. ipprcrod Dare Dept. Approval/Una ACRtEE_MENT LA\HISS ION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT AS owNEIL, CONTRACTOR AND. OR THE AGENT OF THE CONTRACTOR OR OWNER TO CONSTRUCT THE STRUCTURE .; 'ETAL ED ON PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED TO .AND REVIEWED BY THE BUILDCIG DEPARTMENT. N CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. THE SIGNER HEREBY AGREES TO COMPLY W1I}I ALL. BUILDING CODES AND LAND USE REGULATIONS ADOPTED B MPI-.AILFTUP COUNTY PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GIVEN DI 30.25.201 CRS AS AMENDED. THE SIGNER FURTHER AGREES THAT IF THE ABOVE SAID ORDINANCES ARE NOT FULL 'OMPLIED WITH ENT THE LOCATION. ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED STRUCTURE. THE PERMIT MAY THEN 8E REVOKED BY NOTICE FRO' HE'. COUNTY AND THAT THEN AND THERE IT SHAT L BECOME NULL AND VOID. rix ISSUANCE OF .A PERMIT BASED UPON PLANS. SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DATA SHALL NOT PREVENT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FROM THEREAFTER REQITIRL'NG'TT 'ORRECTION OF ERRORS TN SAID PLANS. SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DATA OR FRO PREVENTING BUILDING OPERATION BEING CARRIED ON THEREUNDER WHEN : _'lOLATION OF 11IS CODE OR ANY OTHER ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OF THIS JURISDICTION. HE REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED THEREAFTER DOES NOT CON 7. ESPONSTBILICIES OR LIABILITIES 8Y' GARFIELD COUNTY FOR. ERRORS. OMISSIONS OR DISCREPANCIES. THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE AIRiNGCONSTRICTIONRESTSSPECIFICALLYWITHTHEARCHITECT,DESIGNER-BL1 DERANDOWNER COMMENTS ARE DTTENDED TO B JF THE OWNERS INTEREST. :_rlotm.ou3 I �[yL// am HERS ( Y ACKN OWIEDC'E THAT I HAVE READ AND UNDERST�� T E A E NT ABOVE. r - pre -e) f ami) c.ict C f073 AN ACCEPTANCE OF AN V AND LVIPLEMENTATIC VATIVE AND IN SUPPOF r The following items are required by Garfield County for a final inspection: 1. A final Electrical Inspection from the Colorado State Electrical Inspector; 2. Permanent address assigned by Garfield County Building Department posted where readily visible from access road; 3. A finished roof, a lockable house, complete exterior siding, exterior doors and windows installed, a complete kitchen with cabinets, a sink with hot & cold running water, non-absorbent kitchen floor coverings, counter tops and finished walls, ready for stove and refrigerator, all necessary plumbing; — 4. A complete bathroom, with wash bowl, tub or shower, toilet stool, hot and cold running water, non-absorbent floors and walls finished and a privacy door; 5. All steps outside or inside over three (3) steps must have handrails, guard rails on balconies or decks over 30" high constructed to all 1994 UBC requirements; 6. Outside grading done to where water will detour away from the building; 7. Exceptions to the outside steps, decks and grading may be made upon the demonstration of extenuating circumstances, i.e. weather, but a Certificate of Occupancy will not be issued until all the required items are completed and a final inspection made. A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WILL NOT BE ISSUED UNTIL ALL THE ABOVE ITEMS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. ****CANNOT OCCUPY OR USE DWELLING UNTIL A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (C.O.) IS ISSUED. OCCUPANCY OR USE OF DWELLING WITHOUT A C.O. WILL BE CONSIDERED AN ILLEGAL OCCUPANCY AND MAY BE GROUNDS FOR VACATION PREMISES UNTIL ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE MET. I and _ tand and agree to abide by the above conditions for occupancy, _w d the issuance of a C to • Occupancy for the dwelling under building permit # cj o Date Flight Department Hangar Proj. No. GarCo39.99 Permit and Plan Review Fees Based upon Type II -N Construction Building equipped with an automatic fire sprinkler system Offices 1914 s.f. @ $78.32 = $149,904.48 Hangar/Storage 24,835 s.f. @ $27.29 = $677,747.15 Valuation = $827,651.63 Permit Fee $4,281.25 Plan Review Fee $2,782.81 Total $7,064.06 Flight Dept Hangar fee G&ech Hepworth•Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. 5020 County Road 154 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Phone: 970-945.7988 Fax: 970.945.8454 hpgeo@hpgeolech.com SUBSOIL STUDY FOR FOUNDATION DESIGN PROPOSED "FLIGHT DEPARTMENT" HANGAR GARFIELD COUNTY AIRPORT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO JOB NO. 199 678 OCTOBER 8, 1999 4 ,REVE1VED OCT 1 3 1999 PREPARED FOR: FENTON CONSTRUCTION" -1 ATTN: JACK WHEELER 308 SOUTH GALENA STREET ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. October 8, 1999 Fenton Construction Attn: Jack Wheeler 308 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 Job No. 199 678 Subject: Report Transmittal, Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Flight Department Hangar, Garfield County Airport, Garfield County, Colorado Dear Mr. Wheeler: As requested, we have conducted a subsoil study for the proposed hangar building at the subject site. Subsurface conditions encountered in the exploratory borings drilled in the proposed building area consist of about 1/2 foot of topsoil and 5 to 101 feet of stiff to very stiff silt and clay, overlying relatively dense silty and clayey sand with scattered gravel layers and cobbles. Boring 3 encountered relatively dense sandy gravel underlying the sand at a depth of 421 feet. Drilling in the dense gravelly soils with auger equipment was difficult at times due to the cobbles and drilling refusal was encountered at 18 feet in Boring 2. Groundwater was encountered in Boring 3 at 431/2 feet below the ground surface at the time of drilling. The proposed hangar building can be founded on spread footings placed on the natural subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,500 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, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Thomas J. Westhoff Rev. By: DEH TJW/ksm TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 1 SITE CONDITIONS 2 FIELD EXPLORATION 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 2 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 3 FOUNDATIONS 3 FLOOR SLABS 4 SURFACE DRAINAGE 5 LIMITATIONS 5 FIGURE 1 - LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 2 - LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS FIGURE 3 - LEGEND AND NOTES FIGURE 4 - SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS H -P GEOTECH PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF STUDY This report presents the results of a subsoil study for the proposed "Flight Department" hangar building to be located east of the existing "T" hangars, at the Garfield County Airport, Garfield 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 Fenton Construction dated August 26, 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 hangar building will be a tall single story steel frame structure. Ground floor will be slab on grade. Grading for the structure is assumed to be relatively minor with cut depths between about 1 to 6 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 reevaluate the recommendations contained in this report. H -P GEOTECH 2 SITE CONDITIONS At the time of our field exploration the site was a vacant field. Vegetation consisted of grass and weeds. The site grading appeared to be natural with the exception of two soil mounds, one near the southeast property corner about 2 feet high, and one near the southwest property corner about 3 feet high. The topography is relatively flat with a slight slope down to the southwest. The elevation difference across the site is about 61/2 feet. FIELD EXPLORATION The field exploration for the project was conducted on September 2, 1999. Five 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-51HD 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 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. 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 5 to 101 feet of stiff to sandy silt and clay the upper 2 feet of the silt and clay was hard, overlying medium H -P GEOTECH 3 dense to dense interlayering silty and clayey sand with scattered gravel layers and cobbles. Boring 3 encountered relatively dense sandy gravel underlying the sand at a depth of 421 feet. Drilling in the dense sand soils with auger equipment was difficult at times due to the gravel and cobbles and drilling refusal was encountered at 18 feet in Borings 1 and 2. Laboratory testing performed on samples obtained from the borings included natural moisture content, density and percent finer than sand size gradation analyses. Results of consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed drives samples of the silt and clay soils, presented on Figs. 4 and 5, indicate low to moderate compressibility under conditions of loading and wetting and a low collapse/heave potential when wetted under a constant light surcharge. Free water was encountered in Boring 3 at a depth of 43' feet at the time of drilling. The subsoils above the water table were slightly moist to moist. 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 soils. The design and construction criteria presented below should be observed for a spread footing foundation system. 1) Footings placed on the undisturbed natural soils should be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf. Based on experience, we expect settlement of footings designed and constructed as discussed in this section will be about 1 inch or less. There could be additional settlement or heave if the bearing soils were to become wet. HP GEOTECH 4 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. 4) Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 12 feet. 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. 5) All existing fill, topsoil and any loose or disturbed soils should be removed and the footing bearing level extended down to relatively dense natural soils. 6) A representative of the geotechnical engineer should observe all footing excavations prior to concrete placement to evaluate bearing conditions. FLOOR SLABS The natural on-site soils, exclusive of topsoil, are suitable to support lightly to moderately 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 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 granular fill such as road base material should be placed beneath slabs for support. This material should consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with at least 50% retained on the No. 4 sieve and less than 12% passing the No. 200 sieve. H -P GEOTECH 5 All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 % of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on-site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. SURFACE DRAINAGE The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the hangar 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 95 % of the maximum standard Proctor density in pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard Proctor density in landscape areas. 3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be sloped to drain away from the foundation in all directions. We 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 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 H -P GEOTECH 6 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 - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. Thomas J. Westhoff Reviewed By: Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. TJW/ksm 24443 /646 `f ONAL H -P GEOTECH EXISTING HANGER I J BENCH MARK: TOP OF CONCRETE AT MANHOLE; ELEV. 100.0'. ASSUMED. BORING 5 • APPROXIMATE SCALE 1" .g 50' BORING 1 • • BORING 2 • PROPOSED BUILDING BORING 3 • BORING 4 PROPERTY ----) LINE 1000 FEET TO . OF RUNWAY 199 678 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 1 1 • ..�„� 110 MMMININ — 105 — 100 95 r-- 85 �— 75 — 70 BORING 1 BORING 2 BORING 3 BORING 4 BORING 5 ELEV.-101.4' ELEV.2.105.6' ELEV.-103.3' ELEV.-106.8' ELEV.■•100.0' 48/12 WC -6.5 00-109 -200-89 10/12 15/6,22/6 37/12 10/12 13/12 YYVVCC+8.1 00-105 -200-77 37/9.10/0 44/12 Note: Explanation of symbols Is shown on Fig. 3. 50/12 14/12 WC -7.2 00-107 -20085 36/12 WC -11.4 00=126 -20047 34/12 17/12 24/12 BORING 3 CONT. 10/12 WC -10.1 DD -87 -200-57 38/12 15/12 16/12 23/12 20/0 BOTTOM OF BORING AT 44' 58/12 WC -7.4 DD=116 40/12 25/12 WO -14.1 00=118 -200-82 30/12 32/12 110 105 100 95 90 85 80 MEMINM 75 .--. 70 199 678 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LOGS OF EXPLORATORY BORINGS Fig. 2 1 LEGEND: L 48/12 T NOTES: TOPSOIL; clayey, silty, slightly sandy, organic, loose to medium dense. moist, reddish brown. CLAY AND SILT (CL—ML); slightly sandy to sandy, upper 2 feet wos generally hard, deeper soils were stiff, slightly moist, reddish white to brown, slightly to moderately calcareous. SAND (SM—SC); silty to clayey, scattered gravel, medium dense to dense, moist. light gray to brown. GRAVEL (GM—GP); sandy, slightly silty, dense, wet. brown. Relatively undisturbed drive sample; 2—inch I.D. California liner somple. Drive sample; standard penetration test ( SPT ), 1 3/8—inch I.D. split spoon sample. ASTM D — 1586. Drive sample blow count; indicates that 48 blows of o 140—pound hammer falling 30 inches were required to drive the Colifornia or SPT sampler 12 inches. Water level at time of drilling. Practical refusal to drill augers. 1. Exploratory borings were drilled on September 2, 1999 with a 4—inch diameter continuous flight power auger. 2, Locations of exploratory borings were based on building corners staked in the field by others. 3. Elevations of exploratory borings were measured by instrument level and refer to the Bench Mark shown on Fig. 1. 4. The exploratory boring 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 boring logs represent the approximate boundories between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. Water level readings shown on the logs were made on the day borings were drilled. Fluctuation in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC - Water Content ( ) DD = Dry Density ( pcf ) —200 — Percent passing No. 200 sieve. 199 678 HEPWORTH --- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 Compression -- Expansion % Compression — Expansion 1 0 1 2 Moisture Content = 6.5 percent Dry Density = 109 pcf Sample of: Slightly Sandy Silty Cloy From: Boring 1 at 1 Foot Expansion upon wetting 1 0.1 0 1 2 3 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 7 Moisture Content = 8.1 percent Dry Density = 105 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay From: Boring 2 at 5 Feet Compression upon wetting 0.1 L 1 0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 199 678 HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 Expansion % 0 1 2 c 0 v a E (.oa 4 5 Compression — Expansion 6 7 Moisture Content = 10.1 percent Dry Density an 87 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silt From: Boring 4 at 5 Feet Compression upon wetting 0.1 0 1 2 3 1.0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 100 Moisture Content = 7.4 percent Dry Density = 116 pcf Sample of: Sandy Silty Clay From: Boring 5 at 1 Foot l Expansion upon wetting 0.1 1 0 10 APPLIED PRESSURE -- kat 100 199 678 HEPWORTH — PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. SWELL—CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5 (2) 0 SUMMARY OF LABORATORY TEST RESULTS t LSlightly Sandy Silty Clay I Sandy Silty Clay Sandy Silty Clay Clayey Sand with Rock Fragments C75 c co Sandy Silty Clay Sandy Silty Clay 1 iii ATTERIERG MOUS i I it: Iii _ I. 89 LL 85 d' 57 IN (0 1 g1 i I gli `13 Lc) LOl csi r n• co 9L 8L 1 i / i. LD r co N vt.r r E i , co in 0 co r- OL r (V M It L) May -15-00 12:04P TPI Industrial, Inc. Permit # 35-) ke g y ❑ Ok rough in ❑ Ok partial rough in ❑ Ok to pour k final Address: '// _.awe _iii. 4.7 Date y1j2Jda inspector /4:4,,� Inspector Phone # COLORADO STATE ELECTRICAL BOARD 1580 Logan Street, Suite 550 Denver, CO 80203-1941 970 242 5330 P.02 0 Permit # 3S-1 k ? Ok rough in ❑ Ok partial rough in f, Ok to pour ❑ Ok final Address J d2 O 4 Date .31J0 )oo Inspector 0j4!. Inspector Phone # COLORADO STATE ELECTRICAL BOARD 1580 Logan Street, Suite 550 Denver, CO 80203-1941 May -15-00 12:04P TPI Industrial, Inc. Date Number of pages including cover sheet To: .5,114‘, (L' t i l ow e, Phone Fax Phone CC: ❑ Urgent For your review From: 970 242 5330 P. 01 TPI INDUSTRIAL, INC. 1551 INDEPENDENT AVENUE GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81505 71701), Phone Fax Phone (970) 243-4642 (970) 242-5330 Reply ASAP [] Please comment -6 164 e e 6.4-t a 1 r yuv I Ao t - Coll wit -rw-s trot cfri (P7o- £7 5 5`101 000o'0 9�tg,mg. £Z.KE=2 X4(0 Ecoc 3 a E Qa E G2 E $ z 0 -1 m @ 0 (D (joEq uo enuguoO) k 0 z ƒ 1 x I N 0 2