The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5685 No. 5685 GARlIELD COUNTY BUILDING, SANI LA TION and PLANNING DEPARTMENT 109 8th Street Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 (303) 945 -8212 lob Address 2585 Midland Avenue, Glenwood Springs Nature of Work Building Permit Use of Building Duplex Owner Elmer (Buckey) Arbaney Contractor Owner Amount ofrcrmita 1,193.78 male October 9, 1995 Permit: 723.50 Plan : 313.30 Paid $313.30 4 -14 -95 S. Archuleta Clerk BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION GARFIELD COUNTY, / COLORADO Applicant to complete numbered spaces only. PERMIT � y NO. S G ��I PARCEUSCHED NO. T Joe AAnnum a S 11 p ,c l ed � / r t a- `" M "_ - _/ � . S ' 1 LEGAL LCTNO. T1 _ BLOCK SUBDIVISION DESCR. 2 OWNER l-,4 w la.•% Gam, ADDRESS 1ykC / :,/,/ /Ad f- PH. SYy Sr WK. PH. _cyst /5 /J7 ^1 3 CONTRACTOR r ril ADDRESS PH. LICENSE NO. 4 ARCHITECT OR DESIGNER 5 c% /.4 ADDRESS PH. LICENSE NO. 5 ENGINEER , % /7 , S • 110%Q - to ADDRESS PH. LICENSE NO. 6 SF OF BUILDING -2 i(1 . S.FOFLOT / f .4CILc-'N HEIGHT Y 'R NQ OF FLOORS . tz'�C it .l. .r/ i1-r.J 2 F1 . /! 7 USE OF BUILDING W _ r CS,. ": . l�iZ 7T - 1� r4 i�r i /J� ..� / i � ' ��p 1 • CO 8 CLASS OF WORK: »NEW °ADDITION °ALTERATION o REPAIR °MOVE °REMOVE O�c4/ab Q: rj fi� tw : / /?Cfl O 9 DESCRIBE WORK: 7;1 G44.9c t,3Yo`4 5 : 6 'f%de 7•o rqc. 1074 vgr/ow s 4P5 /.2 3 , 356. /D 10 GARAGE k' SINGLE DOUBLE CARPORT SINGLE DOUBLE DRIVEWAY PERMIT 2/J ON SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL PERMIT' - SITE PLAN an 11 VALUATION OF WORK: $ .45 9 Pt ADJUSTED VAL.$ /2J t$' ( /J PL AIt'Y0 o t 3 /3 PERMIT FEE 7 ZJ'.5d SPECIAL CONDITIONS: SCHOOL IMP } fr tEEE, / NO. OF BUILDINGS ON USE OF BUILDINGS NOW ON rr /7 �j PARCEL /J M PARCEL -� TOTAL , 193.? OCC. GRI?-3 4- 1 CONST. TYPE. A NOTICE WATER SUPPLY DATE PERMIT ISSUED SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL PLUMBING, HEATING, SPECIAL APPROVALS REQUIRED RECerhg, NOT REQUIRED VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING. !,// THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUCTION AUTHORIZED IS ZONING NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 180 DAYS, OR IF CONSTRUCTION OR WORK 15 SUSPENDED n' OR ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF 180 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS JW.� COMMENCED. HEALTH DEPT. .��g�y�� I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THIS APPLICATION AND KNOW P^" b THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT. ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES FIRE DEPT. ,, / 9 � /I ( • ! I GOVERNING THIS TYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIED Offer ✓NZ HEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOT PRESUME TO GIVE SOIL REPORT of J fZfP AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THE PROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATING G(9NSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF SETBACKS CONSTRUCTION , n • ' ,v L / t. /S ..r (Date) iY. 1 . K y / S 515 FLOOD HAZARD Sign: r �: , Contractor orauthoriz age , • 'n• read : • :erstood notice env: -'// s -/ - - / %aid 4 . 3 MANUF. HOME uilding• /d - pertinent Approvaate Planning Dep.' ment Approval/date E /Ur ff. le Q. /J OTHER /V/L Itten /We L-- ate v ✓ PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT AS OWNER, CONTRACTOR AND /OR THE AGENT OF THE CONTRACTOR OR OWNER TO CONSTRUCT THE STRUCTURE AS DETAILED ON PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS SUBMITTED TO AND REVIEWED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT THE SIGNER HEREBY AGREES TO COMPLY WITH ALL BUILDING CODES AND LAND USE REGULATIONS ADOPTED BY GARFIELD COUNTY PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY GIVEN IN 30.28.201 CRS AS AMENDED. THE SIGNER FURTHER AGREES THAT IF THE ABOVE SAID ORDINANCES ARE NOT FULLY COMPLIED WITH IN THE LOCATION, ERECTION, CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED STRUCTURE. THE PERMIT MAY THEN BE REVOKED BY NOTICE FROM THE COUNTY AND THAT THEN AND THERE IT SHALL BECOME NULL AND VOID. THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BASED UPON PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DATA SHALL NOT PREVENT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL FROM THEREAFTER REQUIRING THE CORRECTION OF ERRORS IN SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER DATA OR FROM PREVENTING BUILDING OPERATION BEING CARRIED ON THEREUNDER WHEN IN VIOLATION OF THIS CODE OR ANY OTHER ORDINANCE OR REGULATION OF THIS JURISDICTION. THE REVIEW OF THE SUBMITTED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND INSPECTIONS CONDUCTED THEREAFTER DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN ACCEPTANCE OF ANY RESPONSIBILITIES OR LIA TI,E ,eY.., R.F,IE • •UN • FOR ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR DISCREPANCIES. THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THESE ITEMS AND IMPLEMEN TION.,DURING: CO , F,11' v STS SPECIFICALLY WITH THE ARCHITECT, DESIGNER, BUILDER AND OWNER. COMMENTS ARE INTENDED TO B ECONSPRVAT1.VE A 19 A .." RT OF THE OWNERS INTEREST. . , y � Garform.003 I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THA I HAI A[JC),}�p1pER,, 1 D THE AGREEMENT ABOVE (INITIAL / ! . 1 P g/3, 3 -9 91-/ S S 8 S� P7�p7 ,, cli i { , R,' i' :'>:Q', tNNTY ^-...`„ /- — ^ . ' , • ^ Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D. CONSomwoemmmm P.[LB0Ku SILL COLORADO o1o5u r - -- - - OoovM-5^oo(2*xoonS) � • 10 MAY 0 I 595 (1 /\nr,.1 , .7., 1/!9i�� `+�'� --~~ GAFF erELD COUNTY Ducky Artia/)ey 25B5Midlane evp/'pe 8lenwo'zd Sprins, CO 816Q1 RE: Hazard Evaluation New Site, 25B5 MiUland Avon//e Dear Mr, Arba:re.: I visited the above referenced prnperti recently fcr purprses Li' a geologic hazard re-evaluat1on, csppcial1y as it pertains to rock fall and debris flow potential, of the second home site near the front of your property, to the east of the present hame, where a new home is contemplated. As you know both Elf these hazards are fairly common in this part of the Roaring Fork ;a1ley. Landslide is also a potential hazard to the south but does not affect this site. My general findings are still that tbr hazards are indeed present within the property but rocks will not reach the new site, well away from the base of the hillside. Also, rock fall is directed to either side of the lot due to the cone shaped topography above the site. Debris flows, in their waning stages, may reach the new site. Most ist was the noting of a large bouJder of red sandstone, lying about furl feet south of the present home, which stopped well above the new site, and to the south of it" On either side of the lot are remnants of debris flows which stopped on this gentler portion of the hillside where the improvements lie. The steap hillside above thp [x i� at lrast 011 rr'-| !Hips. The landslidc I notsd is :mill south of ihe propr+�' and r*nnot a+fcct it„ (d.th rrsptct 'I: lhe debris avalanche hazar, I dn nod:. see evidence above the property for any great thickness of material becoming involved, The topography is also somewhat favorable in that a shoulder on the hillside will cause most material to flow north and south of this propertv. The site chosen is a good one and only needs to be kept as high above finished grade as feasible with landscaping at the rear oD: the home designed to direct whatever flow material approaches the site around i+. ___ ~ `^ ' .~ /--1J ' . , ' , ` The tract is gently sloping toward the east, and the County Road is just east of the property. Even though the soils of this property are suitable for development, a soils engineering study should be performed for proper foundation design. Generally, the home will be on roll"vium derived from the Pennsylvi.mnian-Permin age Maroon Formation outcropping on the steep hill side to the west. Water and waste dispo will be municipally available, and access to the site will be from the present easement- The home should be designed to prevent the accum of radon gas as this is becoming standard practice in the State. Soils investigation for purposes of proper foundation design should precede constr.'. tinn" If there are further questions, please contact me. • Si ' aly, Nicholas Lampiris Consulting Geologist HEEWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 5020 Road 154 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 May 16, 1995 Fax 970 945 -8454 Phone 970 945 -7988 Bucky Arbaney 2585 Midland Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Job No. 195 222 Subject: Subsoil Study for Foundation Design, Proposed Duplex Residence, 2585 Midland Avenue, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Dear Mr. Arbaney: As requested, Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed a subsoil study for design of foundations at the subject site. The study was conducted in accordance with our agreement for geotechnical engineering services to you dated April 28, 1995. The data obtained and our recommendations based on the proposed construction and subsurface conditions encountered are presented in this report. We understand that the geologic hazards at the site have been addressed by Nick Lampiris. Proposed Construction: The proposed duplex will be a single story split level above a crawlspace located on the site as shown on Fig. 1. Cut depths are expected to range between about 4 to 6 feet. Foundation loadings for this type of construction are assumed to be relatively light. If building conditions or foundation loadings are significantly different from those described above, we should be notified to reevaluate the recommendations presented in this report. Site Conditions: At the time of our field work an existing bi -level wood frame residence and a one -story metal garage shop building were located to the southwest and west, respectively, of the proposed duplex location. The ground surface is relatively flat with a slight to moderate slope down to the east and Midland Avenue. The proposed duplex location is shown on Fig. 1. Vegetation in the proposed building area consists mainly of native grasses and weeds. The soils in the area are known to be hydrocompactive and a nearby residence has experienced relatively large differential settlements. - Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at the site were evaluated by excavating two exploratory pits at the approximate locations shown on Fig. 1. The logs of the pits are presented on Fig. 2. The subsoils encountered, below about 1/2 foot of topsoil, consist of 3 to 4 feet of stiff sandy clay and silt overlying medium dense clayey sandy gravel. Results of swell - consolidation testing performed on relatively undisturbed samples of the finer - grained soils, presented on Figs. 4 and 5, indicate low compressibility under existing moisture conditions and light loading and a low to high collapse potential (settlement under constant load) when wetted. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a sample of the sandy gravel (minus 5 -inch fraction) obtained Bucky Arbaney May 16, 1995 Page 2 from the site are presented on Fig. 6. No free water was observed in the pits at the time of excavation and the soils were moist. Foundation Recommendations: Considering the subsoil conditions encountered in the exploratory pits and the nature of the proposed construction, we recommend spread („ footings placed on the undisturbed gravel soils designed for an allowable soil bearing io pressure of 1200 psf for support of the proposed duplex. Excessive differential settlement could occur if the bearing soils become wet. Precautions should be taken to reduce the risk of wetting of the bearing soils by providing good surface drainage O V `n1 around the duplex as described below. Footings should be a minimum width of l " 16 inches for continuous walls and 2 feet for columns. Loose disturbed soils {� j ti encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excavation should be removed ��4 s and the footing bearing level extended down to the undisturbed natural soils. Exterior footings should be provided with adequate cover above their bearing elevations for frost � ( 1� Q ` protection. Placement of footings at least 36 inches below the exterior grade is typically used in this area. Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to span local anomalies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 14 feet. Foundation walls acting as retaining structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth pressure based on an equivalent fluid unit weight of at least 50 pcf for the on -site sandy clay and silt soils as backfill. Floor Slabs: If slabs -on -grade are used in lightly loaded garage or mechanical room spaces, the following precautions should be taken. The soils are hydrocompactive and could settle if they became wet. To reduce the effects of differential movement, floor slabs should be separated from all bearing walls and columns with expansion joints which allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control joints should be used to reduce damage due to shrinkage cracking. The requirements for joint spacing and slab reinforcement should be established by the designer based on experience and the intended slab use. A minimum 4 -inch layer of free - draining gravel should be placed beneath basement level slabs to facilitate drainage. This material should consist of minus 2 -inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 2% passing the No. 200 sieve. All fill materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at least 95 % of maximum standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can consist of the on -site soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized rock. Surface Drainage: The following drainage precautions should be observed during construction and maintained at all times after the duplex has been completed: H -P GEOTECH Bucky Arbaney May 16, 1995 - Page 3 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 12 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in pavement and walkway areas. 4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits of all backfill. 5) Landscaping which requires regular heavy irrigation should be located at least 10 feet from the building. Limitations: This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this area at this time. We make no other warranty either expressed or implied. The conclusions and recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pits excavated at the locations indicated on Fig. 1, the proposed type of construction and our experience in the area. Our findings include interpolation and extrapolation of the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory pits and variations in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is performed. If conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this report, we should be notified at once so re- evaluation of the recommendations may be made. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We are not responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the project evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to verify that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations H -P GEOTECH Bucky Arbaney May 16, 1995 Page 4 presented herein. We recommend on -site observation of excavations and foundation bearing strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the soil engineer. If you have any questions or if we may be of further assistance, please call our office. Sincerely, HEPWORTH - PAWLAK GEOTEC INC. . ?C; ftEG......, Jor y Z. Ad mson, Jr., P.E. Reviewed By: ( �" - ";� , '7 t5'AL Daniel E. Hardin, P.E. JZA/rr Attachments H -P GEOTECH APPROXIMATE SCALE `I 1" = 20' / r BENCH MARK :GROU D AT BUILDING CORNER; LEV. = 100.0', ASSUMED. 70 ,+ I . 1 PIT I • er " PROPOSED / e DUPLEX S s lif r a % 2 .1 =7, PIT 2 (-----/V 04 . J i f 54j$ 3 2 PROPERTY BOUNDARIES MIDLAND AVENUE HEPWORTH PAWLAK 195 222 GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. I LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS I Fig. I Pit 1 Pit 2 Elev. =99.3' Elev. =95.1' 100 100 III — e • ,k 95 95 nC =14 2 4 w — o WC -5.6 DD =11b — w i 1?D =92 - 200 =47 — - 200 =63 pc. C WC =15.5 [DD=101 — c, o _ =� . - 2 00 =51 _ _ � > 90 ,. - 1 +4 =44 90 — 7_00 = "33 — 85 85 — Note: Explanation of symbols is shown on Figure 3. 195 222 I HEPWORTH PAWLAK Logs of Exploratory Pits I Fig. 2 . GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. 1 LEGEND: TOPSOIL; organic clay and silt, sandy, stiff, moist, reddish brown and dark brown. F CLAY AND SILT (CL -ML); sandy, slightly gravelly, stiff, moist, reddish . brown. GRAVEL (GC -GM); clayey, silty, sandy, scattered cobbles, medium dense, moist, reddish brown. 2 -inch Diameter Hand Driven Liner. Disturbed Bulk Sample. NOTES: 1._ Exploratory pits were excavated on May 2, 1995 with a rubber tired backhoe. 2. Locations of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plarr provided. 3. Elevations of exploratory pits were measured by instrument level and refer to the Bench Mark on Fig. 1. 4. The exploratory pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method used. 5. The lines between materials shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the i approximate boundaries between material types and transitions may be gradual. 6. No free water was encountered in the pits at the time of excavating. Fluctuations in water level may occur with time. 7. Laboratory Testing Results: WC = Moisture Content ( %) DD = Dry Density (pcf) +4 = Percent retained on No. 4 sieve - -200 = Percent passing No. 200 sieve 195 222 HEPWORTH- PAWLAK LEGEND AND NOTES Fig. 3 GEOTECHNICAL, inc. • Moisture Content = 5.6 percent Dry Unit Weight = 92 pc Sample of Sandy Clayey Silt From: Pit 1 @ 5.5 Feet 1 2 • 1 i 3 Compression 4— 1 Upon Wetting 5 11 1 • m • 6 N E V 2 • 8 9 1 • 10 11 1 1 I • 1 1 • 1 viii 1 1 11 1 11111 1 • 12 1111 1 • 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE — ksf 195 222 HEr'WORTH- I'AWIAK SWELL - CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 4 GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. . Moisture Content = 14 percent Dry Unit Weight = 110 Pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay and Silt with gravel From: Pit 2 @ 2.5 Feet 1 0 ■ N 1 ppr En faa 8 2 p 3 / No Movement Upon Wetting f 0.1 - - 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf I Moisture Content = 15.5 percent ' Dry Unit Weight = 101 pcf Sample of: Sandy Clay and Silt with Gravel From: Pit 2 @ 5 Feet 0 1 11 n IIII • 2 immialli ompression 1 Ln Upon Wetting, v 0, O 3 U O 4 1 5 0.1 1.0 10 100 APPLIED PRESSURE - ksf - 195 222 HEPWORTH- PAWLAK SWELL- CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 5 GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. HYDROMETER ANALYSIS I SIEVE ANALYSIS J I IME READINGS U.S. S1 ANUMIU SER AI SERIES CLEAR CLEMI SOUIE OPENINGS 24 '10. 1 HR. 'in 15 MIN 15 PAIN. 60 MIN. 19 MIN.. L/161. 1 MIN. •1161 •130 •50 '40'30 '16 I'n • W 1r 1.6' r 5 -r U 100 - -- ■ • - - -- • Ala j • I'D W' ��• 20 70 E � � !■ W � w • - - -- --- 40 z 60 in _ w 4 50 rt m � 1 — - - !� � ra ' G 01 'O � , 0. TO t — 20 10 30 — -- WI .302 .005 .009 1119 03/ .0/4 .149 .29/ 1 ' 500 1.19 2 2 2 38 4.16 9.52 19.1 38.1. 76.2 127 2 152 DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS SAND I GRAVEL COBBLES CLAY TO SILT FINE I MEDIUM ICUAIISE I _ FINE I GOARSE GRAVEL 44 % SAND 23 % SILT AND CLAY 33 % _ LIQUID LIMIT PLASTICITY INOEX SAMPLE OF Clayey Sandy Gravel FROM Pit 2 at 5 feet thru 6 feet • with Cobbles : HYDROMETER ANALYSIS SIEVE ANALYSIS I TIME READINGS I U.S. SIANOn11U ti[RIES CLEAR SOUMIE OPENINGS 24 JAI 7 HA. •1 0 . S 111N15 M1N. 641 MIN. 19 MIN. 4 MIN. 1111N '200 '100 '171 '40 ' 1R 1 'J M� Y, 1K' T 5'F•'6" iW — t —a - -.1-- 90 inan W _L4 20 30 1 I 1 I� =1 70 _1_ --- = ___ — w g 50 aM— — — r — � —I ° = c0 1•.R�r —� — + -- 1 ° s6�� -`-� 50c 1 101 . - .7 �— C 9 30 W A !!! E ! — !— - - 0 0 _sue -• - -- • -6-- - - - -Y ...111 100 - .001 .002 .005 .009 .019 .307 .074 .149 .297 500 1.19 .38 4.76 9.52 19.1 38.1 762 127 200 .42 20 152 I DIAMETER OF PARTICLE IN MILLIMETERS CLAY TO SILT SANG (''RAVEL COBBLES FINE I MEDIUM ICOARSE FINE I COARSE GRAVEL % SAND % SILT AND CLAY % UOUID LIMIT % PLASTICITY INDEX % SAMPLE OF FROM 195 222 HEPWORTH- PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL, Inc. GRADATION TEST RESULTS Fig. 6 • N LO 2 ._ ] 5 0 14 q \ ) / j W® C \\ }\ \) � ( 0 0 0 ) 0 0 0 ) / \ 8 2 0 « @ o = - _ Z H :� H s ili in . LLI w 0 ` o _ o 3 / )± / ^\ a! )d CO N LC) r CO CO a I 0 CO o CC \ P �� Csl 0. > ! IL / \ ! 3 - • ;Z (NI \ ) §§ 1- (N § 00 ® / \ [[I / / { 0 2 Lo I. a a. • GARFIELD COUNTY BUILDING AND PLANNING MINIMUM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS for SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING CONSTRUCTION including NEW CONSTRUCTION ADDITIONS ALTERATIONS and MOVED BUILDINGS In order to understand the scope of the work intended under a hermit application and expedite the issuance of a permit it is important that complete information be provided. Adequate arut complete information will prevent delays in the plan review process. Reviewing a plan and the discovery that required information has not been provided by the applicant may result in the delay of the permit issuance and in proceeding with building construction. The owner or contractor may be required to provide this information before the plan review may proceed. This causes delays because other plans that are iii line for review May be given attention before the new information may he reviewed after It has been provided to the Building Department. Please review this document to determine if you have enough information to design your project and provide adequate information to facilitate a plan review. If you do not, it may be helpful to obtain a boolt titled 'Dwelling construction under the Uniform Building Code. This book is available to you through this department at our cost. Also, please consider using a design professional for assistance in your design and a construction professional for construction of your project. To provide for a rnore understandable plan in order to determine compliance with the building, plumbing and mechanical codes, applicants are requested to review the following check list prior to and during design. Applicants are required to indicate appropriately and to submit completed check list at time of application for a permit: 1 , 1. Is a site plan included that indicates the distance of the proposed building or addition to property lines, other buildings, set back i easements and utility easements? Yes No n Not necessary for this project 2, 1 2. Does the site plan include the location of the 1.S.D.S: (ndividil l Sewage Disposal System) and the distances to property lines, wells (on subject property and adjacent properties) , streams or water courses? Yes No ,n Not necessary for this project __X (2) 3. Does the site plan indicate the location and direction of the County or private road accessing llie property? Yes No ,n Not necessary for this project __K_ 4. Do the plans include a foundation plan indicating the size, location and spacing of all reinforcing steel in accordance with the uniform building code or per stamped engineered design? Yes y__ No m Not necessary for this project (2) 5. Do the plans indicate the location and size of ventilation openings for under floor crawl spaces and the clearances required between wood and earth? Yes No c „ Not necessary for this project (2) 6. Do the plans indicate the size an location of ventilation openings for the attic, roof joist spaces and soffits? Yes No ,,, Not necessary for this project (2) 7. Do the plans include design loads as required under the Uniform Building code for roof snow loads, ( a minimum of 40 pounds per square fool in Garfield County) floor loads and wind loads? Yes .Y, No (u Not necessary for this project (2) B. Does the plan include a building section drawing indicating foundation, wall, floor and roof construction? Yes __„e_ No u) Not necessary for this project (2) 9. Does the building section drawing include size and spacing of floor joists, wall studs, ceiling joists, roof rafters or joists or trusses? Yes 41 No u, Not necessary for this project m 10. Does the building section drawing or other detail include the method of positive connection of all columns and beams? 2 • Yes ,� No „) Not necessary for this project (2) 11. Does the plan Indicate the height of the building or proposed addition from the highest point_ of the building or addition measured at mid span between the ridge and the eave down to existing grade contours? Yes No in Not necessary for this project (2) 12. Does the plan include any stove or zero clearance fireplace planned for installation including make and model and Colorado Phase II certifications or phase 11 EPA certification? Yes No , Not necessary for this project _)C_ 13. Does the plan include a masonry fireplace including a fireplace section indicating design to comply with the Uniform Building Code Chapter 37? Yes No (1) Not necessary for this project __ _ 14. Does the plan Include a window schedule or other verification that egress /rescue windows from sleeping rooms and /or basements comply with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code? Yes No ,,,, Not necessary for this project (2) 15. Does the plan include a window schedule or other verification that windows provide natural light and ventilation for all habitable rooms? Yes No _44__0) Not necessary for this project (2) 16. Do the plans indicate the location of glazing subject to human impact such as glass doors, glazing immediately adjacent to such doors; glazing adjacent to any surface normally used as a walking surface; sliding glass doors; fixed glass panels; shower doors and tub enclosures and specify safety glazing for these areas? Yes No (u Not necessary for this project Y (2) 17. 1s the location of all natural and liquid petroleum gas furnaces, boilers and water heaters indicated on the plan? Yes -L No (u Not necessary for this project (2) 18. I -lave two (2) complete sets of constructions drawings been submitted with the application? Yes No (u Not necessary for this project (2) 19. (lave you designed or had this plan designed while considering building and other construction code requirements? Yes -- - No (3) 3 • 20. Does the plan accurately indicate what you intend to construct and what will receive a final inspection by the Garfield Building Department? Yes 4!. No 21. Do you understand that approval for design and /or construcdon changes are required prioi_to the application of these changes? Yes No 22. Do you understand that the Building Department will collect a "Plan Review" fee from yott at the time of application and that you will be required to pay the "Permit Fee" as well as any "School impact" or "Septic system " fees required, at the time you pick up your building permit? Yes _ ; No 2J. Are you aware that you are required to call for all inspections required under the Uniform Building Code including approval on a final iuspectionhrior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy and occupancy of the building? Yes ___ No 24. Are you aware that the person signing the Permit Application whether the "Owner ", "Agent of the Owner ", "General Contractor ", "Contractor" or otherwise, signing the application is the party responsible for the project complying with the Uniform Codes ". Yes _L__ No 13) I hereby acknowledge that I have read, understand and answered these questions accurately to the best of my ability. �� J — �s�s ' signature date Phone: —C 9 (days); (evenings) Project Name: Project Address: 4 • Notes: (I) If you have answered "No' on any Of these qucsllons you may be required lo provide Oils Information at the request of the Building Official prior to beginning the plan review process. Delays In Issuing the permit are to be expected. Work rimy col proceed without the Issuance of the permit. (2) if you have answered 'Not necessary for this prmleclr on any of the questions and II Is determined by the Building Official that the ha(nrmation Is necessary lo review the application and pions to determine minimum compliance with the adopted codes, please expect the following: A. The application may be placed hehlud more recent npplicallons for building permlls In the review process and nnl reviewed unlll required Information has been provided and the application Dilates again to firs( position for review, B. Delay In Issuance of the penult. C. Delay In proceeding with consirucllou. (3) If you answered No to This question the circumstances described to Lite question could result In a'Stop Work Order' being issued or a - Cer'11Ilcale of Occup:uicy' not being Issued. PerApp01.94 Effective May 1, 1994 5 THIS t % �.��; ilk ' 3 - t ' ''u 24 HOURS rioncE REQUIRED FOR INSPECTIONS Bt # S ' i . '' �. ,. ,�`d ` k .� 5 qt 1 ,. \ a 1 .1 �d P GARFIELD C'0 Li ITY, COLORADO de, ,egaarz) 1 A F I ef Date Issued / Zoned Area Permit No. AGREEMENT In consideration of the issuance of this permit, the applicant hereby agrees to comply with all laws and regulations related to the zoning, location; construction and erection of the proposed structure for which this permit is granted, and further agrees that if the above said regulations are not fully complied with in the zoning, location, erection and construction of the above described structure, the permit may then be revoked by notice froni F'` :.unty s iding-I sLector and IMMEDIATELY BECOME NULL AND VOID, _Ise 1: - s ,.m di IC Ads egal Description.. tars..) f ! 0Ai- Owner • ti 4 t, Contractor OW_ :: .tea Setbacks Front Side Side Rear This Card Must Be Posted So It Is Plainly Visible From the Street Until Final Inspection. INSPECTION RECORD Zoning Roof Covering Electric -Final (by STATE inspector) Footing `e. - y - ( ;L -- 2; -q 17 : 4 7 C-4 ° i 'a (-' (- 6 Foundation /C/ /2h7 -- Plumbing- Underground Gas Piping - E- ,-,' ) 4 Heating Ventilation S. I Frame i . c -6, C � c ' c - Insulation Plumbing Rough Tt - �,, Drywall _ y(,_ ��j, �-- / - ' Electric- Rough %rf - A' —e l ~ J` "``-£ (by STATE inspector) .„7 5,{___ : Final L - ' /_;at i� 1 ALL LISTED ITEMS MUST BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BEFORE COVERING — WHETHER INTERIOR OR EXTERIOR, UNDERGROUND OR ABOVE GROUND. THIS PERMIT IS NOT TRANSFERABLE Phone 945 -8212 109 8th Street, County Courthouse, Glenwood Springs, Colo. APP RpyED DO NOT DESTROY THIS CARD / o ao r3 •r o cn Y ha 5 CO '71 o 0 o °1 d C � N i y c y ^ W C 1 ^ 0 G 0 O U o o . n o b y N • ° m Y c _` a� ro `o d be H 54 d e in cn Coo R �j � O N 0 Y. V p `° W O co • o cn "1:$ U y [0 J. >". • d � ��yy :. Y lomi et c , i..l ;. rte-O O U ,� h 7s, p in O p z Q > • o ^ o ° ¢ Q =0t tO co O N Q M y R v a U ° �' a v� a.) ,..� ° epW U y �pp „ ` N O O ❑ •..i y 5 .— U 3 u tt .r MM a) c O c F+••1 it F b(1 O ,��, = = • 7, 0) o s ° . Yr" 0 r7l • a Y • O H G 7 R , 0 iV y ca O v m tia • like at 0 N N Qi U W y u 4 U O ro G q S..• 0 T .-� rn W H 6 ' c, CJ V U cc.) � Q, up 7 u Z Q p 'O N �� • f, En 0 3p 111 I .. N ct C.) S O g Z O � ,, j 1 ? 7 W Coo 0 N .5 z u ` O O U cn W Q p W y G CC C C v A t U OD 0 b.0 U y u'C N [ a v 0 j L'., y p m o , u VI _ " � O O - •• c b 6 s`o E�y� .� 0 0 W U W . ` a ' • o0 / r