The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About800589.tiff RESOLUTION RE: APPROVAL OF GEOLOGIC HAZARD DEVELOPMENT PERMIT #3 :80 : 2 - LaVERNE AND MARY MUELLER WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, on May 12 , 1980, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado approved a Conditional Use Permit for a single family residence for LaVerne and Mary Mueller with the condition that the Muellers comply with the Weld County Geologic Hazard Regulations, and WHEREAS, the applicants have submitted the required supple- mentary plans, maps, reports and data, and WHEREAS, LaVerne and Mary Mueller have requested approval of a Geologic Hazard District Development Permit on property described as the South Half of the South Half of the Northwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 1 North, Range 68 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has studied the recommendations of the Weld County Planning staff, the report of ADNAN Engineers and Associates , Inc. concerning the sub- surface investigation, and has studied the geologic investiga- tion report of E. O. Church, Inc. , and finds that the request is in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Weld County Geologic Hazard District Regulations , and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners further finds that LaVerne and Mary Mueller have complied with the condition of approval contained in the Conditional Use Permit and that the request for a Geologic Hazard Development Permit should be approved subject to the applicants complying with the recommenda- tions of the Geologic Investigation Report, No. 255 , dated June 5, 1980 of E. O. Church, Inc. and the recommendations of ADNAN Engineers and Associates , Inc. Subsurface Investigation Report, Job No. 80121, dated May 30, 1980. 800 58 9 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Com- missioners of Weld County, Colorado that the Board finds that LaVerne and Mary Mueller have complied with the condition speci- fied in the Conditional Use Permit for a single family residence. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado that Geologic Hazard Development Permit #3 : 80: 2 be , and hereby is, approved provided the applicants comply with the recommendations set forth in the E. O. Church, Inc. Geologic Investigation Report, Job No. 255 , dated June 5 , 1980 and the recommendations set forth in the ADNAN Engineers and Associates, Inc. Subsurface Investigation Report, Job No. 80121 , dated May 30 , 1980. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 16th day of July, A.D. , 1980. [2 n fA ,,,ita:,✓ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: `/ U WELD COUNTY,, COLORADO Weld County Clerk and Recorder /,/i . ( �/ (Aye) and Qerk to the Board C. W. Kitby, Chairman ByT=_%' ..vc , ,-(//( /"AtCCUre�J �Fer�� - Rec. (Aye) Deputy County/(3lerk onard L. Roe, Pro-Tem PP ED AS TO FORM: Oat. (Aye) C ( 1 Norman Carlson YYYY County Attorney (Aye) Lnbyy ar'l ? C 7 /Cf (Aye) ne K. S einmark / DATE PRESENTED : JULY 21 , 1980 T DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES PHONE 1303)3564000 EXT.404 915 10TH STREET GREE LEY,COLORADO 80631 u July 16, 1980illig j C. C� \SS\0<\ t COLORADO ��o �p°�" ;L ` ,v�y GO.T 1 may. I 6µ-e Board of County Commissioners Weld County, Colorado 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Re: Geologic Hazard Development Permit Rj ' B o `, G Dear Commissioners: A The attached report, letters and maps are in reference to a request from gg La Verne and Mary Mueller for approval of a Geologic Hazard District 9 Development Permit on property described as S1 S1 NWti, Section 15, T1N, R68W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado. This property is located 21 miles east and 11 mile north of Erie. On May 12, 1980 the Board of County Commissioners approved a Conditional Use Permit for a single family residence with the condition that the Muellers comply with the Weld County Geologic Hazard Regulations. The applicant has submitted the required supplementary plans, maps, reports l and data. This material has been reviewed by the Colorado GeologicaL Survey, Weld County Health Department, Weld County Engineering Depart- ' ment and Weld County Department of Planning Services. Based upon the information submitted and the adopted policies in the County, the Department of Planning Services Staff recommends the request be approved I for the following reasons: 1. The Geologic Investigation Report by E. 0. Church, Inc. andI. the subsurface investigation report by ADNAN Engineers and Associates indicates that the entire site has been undermined, but feels that a single family residence may be constructed with a low risk of damage. The Colorado Geological Survey has no objection to this request provided the recommendations for foundation construction, utility installation, individual sewage disposal system specification, well construction, and field inspections are followed by the applicant. 2. The Weld County Health Department and Engineering Department has set forth no objections to this request. { Board of County Commissioners July 16, 1980 Page 2 3. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services Staff that this request is in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Weld County Geologic Hazard District Regulations, which state in part, that the adverse impacts of geologic hazards on life and property shall be reduced by providing for geologic hazard investigation and mitigation of adverse impacts of such hazards at the time of initial construction. The Department of Planning Services recommendation for approval is con- ditional upon the applicant complying with the recommendationsin the E. 0. Church, Inc. Geologic Investigation report, Job No. 255, dated June 5, 1980 and the ADNAN Engineers and Associates subsurface Investigation report, Job #80121, dated May 30, 1980. Respectfully, 0. a Chuck Cunliffe s Assistant Zoning Administrator CAC:rjg SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION NW 1/4, SECTION 15, TIN, R58'W , 6TH P .M. MR . L. MUELLER #80121 TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL INTRODUCTION SUBJECT SITE SUBSOIL PROFILE FOUNDATION CRITERIA DRAIN TILE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS CONTROLLED WATERING FIELD INSPECTIONS OTHER CONSIDERATION LOCATION MAP OF TEST BORINGS STRATIGRAPHY OF TEST BORINGS SUMMARIZED LABORATORY ANALYSIS SWELL/CONSOLIDATION GRAPHS RACKFILL DIAGRAM DRAIN TILE DETAIL CONTROLLED FILL SPECIFICATIONS ********************* #80121 encl : Recommendations for Owner • * 4 r , * ENGINEERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. ` „' • ! Civil, Surveying, Soil-Rock Mechanics, Structures and Foundations May 30 , 1980 Mr. LaVerne Mueller 7129 Otis Court Arvada, Colo. 80003 Dear Sir, In accordance with your request , this office has conducted a subsurface in- vestigation for foundation purposes at the subject site. The following report includes the results of that investigation, our con- clusions and recommendations for suitable foundation system in accordance with the subsoils encountered. Consistent with this report , this firm offers the services on a fee basis, of continuing consultation on behalf of the client. This consultation may include discussion relative to compliance of final plans and specifications to the intent this report; participation in the pre-construction conference; a site visitation with personnel for orientation purposes , and submission of addenda where clarification or prior changes are required. We appreciate the opportunity to he of service to ,you in this project . Very truly yours, AA ENGINEERS & ASSOCIATES ING.: H.W. Toppin / Soi Dept . Director / cThejL1/44:),J.,_ H .S. Adnan, P .E . / HSA/sa 888 South Lipan • Denver, Colorado 80223 • 303-936-3423 . ,-,40.-..,..44- r ';,. z,, ,,,,„,,,„,„.„44 . .,;,,,,,,...,„ ,,. Ak ,4:47514- t a ` a. g ENGINEERS & ASSOCIATES, INC. •� -'"�yta ,,,,,,or Civil,Surveying, Soil-Rock Mechanics, Structures and Foundations » der I INTRODUCTION At the request of Mr. LaVerne Mueller, this office has conducted a subsurface investigation for foundation purposes on a 40 acre parcel of land located in the S 1/2 , S 1/2 , NW 1/4 , of Section 15, T1N , R68W of the 6th P .M. , Weld County, Colorado. The field tests were conducted on 5/21/80. This investigation was conducted to determine adequate foundation criteria for residential construction in light of coal mining subsidence hazards and subsoil conditions . This report was prepared for review by the Weld County Zoning Department, in conjunction with the Engineering Geology report by E.O . Church P .E. for the purpose of Conditional Use Permit for the subject site. This report and its findings are valid only for the residential construction project under consideration, and is further limited to the geographical area of the test borings (depicted on Figure 1 , Test Hole Location Plan) . Any other use shall be at the users responsibility and shall relieve AA Engi- neers & Associates , Inc. of liability. SUBJECT SITE The subject site is located as legally described above facing West onto the access roadway along the West section line of Section 15. The site is covered by vegetation and has been under agricultural development historically. 888 South Lipan • Denver, Colorado 80223 • 303-936-3423 Subsurface Investigation 2. NW 1/4 , 515, TIN, R68W, 6th P .M. Weld County, Colorado Mr. L. Mueller SUBJECT SITE (Continued) The Eagle Mine facility is situated in the Southeast quarter of the Section and the site has been entirely undermined for coal between levels of 300 ' to 350' below surface grades. The subect area is considered to present a low hazard to lightly loaded residential structures. Drainage across the subject site is adequate with an average fall of 2% to the East and Northeast being intersected by irrigation ditches running gen- erally North and South. Electrical utilities are located above ground along the West property line. Domestic water service is underground in the street however, the present capacity of the treatment facility will not allow fur- ther taps and the site shall he developed with a water well . SUBSOIL PROFILE As revealed by the 2 test borings the subsoils consist uniformly of 3 ' to 5 ' of moist organic silty-clay loams underlain by 4 ' of stiff plastic clays and sandy clays that are plastic and light brown in coloration through depth ,S ' below grade. Dense, blocky claystone bedrock is encountered below average depth 8 ' that is gray in coloration and weathered to slightly weathered with depth through 16 ' , the limit of exploration. Free ground water was encountered at depth 13 '9" below grade upon completion of drilling. Subsurface Investigation 3. NW 1/4 , S15, T1N , R6SW, 6th P .M. Weld County, Colorado Mr. L. Mueller SUBSOIL PROFILE (Continued) Soils from the shallow claystone bedrock formation displayed a high swell- ing potential with increased moisture content and a non-compressible nature under projected loading. FOUNDATION CRITERIA Based upon the presence of expansive foundation soils and the inherent low subsidence hazard presented by the underground coal mining of the site, we recommend straight piers and rigidly reinforced grade beam type foundation system for the proposed residential construction. Foundation elevations should anticipate future minor subsidence by being sufficiently high to allow for very positive slope in all plumbing and utility lines. Sewer line should exit the foundation a minimum 2' higher than the Septic System. Residential construction should limit brick and brick veneer to the minimum. It is recommended that architectural planning of the residences consider frame wall construction and independent foundations to limit risks posed by the subsidence hazard. Pier and grade beam type foundation system shall be designed for a maximum allowable pressure of 30 ,000 p.s.f. , side shear of 3 ,000 p.s.f. (for that portion of pier embedded into competent bedrock) and a minimum dead load of 10,000 p.s .f“ Minimum 3" voids are to be provided beneath grade beams bet- ween piers. Subsurface Investigation 4. NW 1/4 , 515, T1N, R68W, 6th P .M. Weld County, Colorado Mr. L. Mueller • FOUNDATION CRITERIA (Continued) Pier length is a subject of foundation design, based upon the superimposed loads. Satisfactory penetration into competent bedrock in accordance with the foundation design, shall be verified by a qualified soils engineer or or designated representative at the time of drilling Mushroomed piers (enlarged tops) are not to be allowed. Should the founda- tion level clayey materials become wetted and swell , the mushroom may pro- vide sufficient surface area for the pier to be heaved. This action would transfer differential foundation movement. All loose soils are to be removed from the pier holes prior to placement of concrete. It is recommended that pier concrete be made available at the site at the time of drilling and that all holes be poured as soon as poss- ible upon completion of drilling and approval by the inspector. Piers are to be adequately reinforced their entire length to resist shearing should up-lift occur. Foundation walls are to be adequately reinforced to withstand tolerable differential movement. DRAIN TILE Experience indicates , that shallow bedrock and/or expansive clays may allow collection of moisture in the lesser compacted backfill soils. In anticipation of this eventuality, we recommend installation of peripheral Subsurface Investigation 5. NW 1/4, 515, TIN, R68W, 6th P .M. Weld County, Colorado Mr. L . Mueller DRAIN TILE (Continued) Drain tile is to be led away from the foundation, if possible, and daylighted or drained into an acceptable outlet . It may be desirable to install the drain tile around the interior wall of the structure and provide a common sump point for accumulated water to be diverted to an exterior discharge point. CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Interior loading is to be carried to the outside walls if practical , or concentrated on as few columns as possible to accomplish maximum loading without resulting in an uneconomical beam size. Non-bearing partitions in the basement level or on slab-on-grade are to he provided with a 2" air space, top or bottom, to prevent straining the upper floors and roof system should slab heave occur. Slabs placed directly on the potentially expansive clays may show cracks due to volume changes in the subsoils or through transference of minor subsidence movements; these cracks are to be considered as part of the maintenance cost of the structure should their removal be required. Subsurface Investigation 6. NW 1/4 , S15, T1N, R68W, 6th P .M. Weld County, Colorado Mr. L. Mueller CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (Continued) The following precautions are to be taken to minimize and localize slab cracks . The following recommendations will not guarantee against adverse structural defects or flat work cracking, due to potentially swelling soils. 2 ' of the expansive clays may be removed and replaced with a non-expansive fill material compacted to 85% Standard Proctor Density. As an alternative, slab soils may be perforated for a depth of 2 ' across the slab area at 24" on-centers, and be filled with a non-expansive porous , material or a chemical slurry treatment . As a lesser precaution, slab soils may be pre-wetted for a period of 24-48 hours to allow moisture access to the underlying soils. Interior slabs are to be placed free of the main structure and internal structural members . Slabs are to be provided with control joints at approx- imately every 200 square feet to localize cracks . Interior slabs are to be placed without gravel beds, as gravel tends to allow moisture access to the underlying soils. All backfilling is to be lightly tamped in moistened layers of 8-10 inch lifts and given a slope to conform to the finish grade around the structure. If backfill settlement occurs , same shall be regraded immediately. Subsurface Investigation 7. NW 1/4 , 515, TIN, R68W, 6th P .M. Weld County, Colorado Mr. L. Mueller CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (Continued) All plumbing and utility line openings through the foundation should be oversized and provided with flexible connections. Floor drains through slab-on-grade construction should be provided with goose-neck couplings to withstand tolerable lateral and differential movements. A finish grade of 12" in the first 10 ' , is to be provided around the struc- ture. Of particular importance is the upper 2 ' of the backfill that forms the finish grading. Backfill at this level , when well compacted acts as a barrier to surface moisture. Swales between adjacent sites are to be pro- vided to drain surface water quickly away from the respective foundations and slab soils. All downspouts are to be extended beyond the limits of backfill and provided with splash blocks, or preferably, extended pipes. Splash blocks, or pipes are NOT TO BE REMOVED from beneath any of the roof drainage hardware or out- side faucets. Positive drainage around the structure is to be provided by the BUILDER and maintained at all times by the OWNER/OCCUPANT. Subsurface Investigation 8. NW 1 /4 , 515, T1N, R68W, 6th P .M. Weld County, Colorado Mr. L . Mueller CONTROLLED WATERING • Controlled watering is to be exercised at all times around the walls of the structure. The owner is to be informed of the subsoil conditions and the adverse consequences of swelling soils due to excessive watering near the foundation. Flowers and shrubs that require frequent watering are NOT to be planted near the foundation walls and exterior slabs. No flowers are to be planted around the structure for a distance of 8 ' . Positive drainage is to be main- tained at all times -- NO WATER TRAPS OR PONDING AREAS ARE TO BE ALLOWED. Sprinkling system is to he maintained a minimum distance of 6 ' from the walls and exterior slabs and water is to sprinkle OUTWARD AND AWAY at all times . Hand watering, if necessary, is preferred near the foundation walls. All landscaping is to be accomplished with the object of providing good positive drainage around the structure and across the site. FIELD INSPECTIONS We request we be allowed to conduct inspections of various phases of construction pertinent to the intent of this report, to insure that our recommendations are properly interpreted and followed. Subsurface Investigation 9. NW 1/4 , 515, T1N, R68W, 6th P .M. Weld County, Colorado Mr. L. Mueller OTHER CONSIDERATION All personnel involved in construction of the subject site are to be aware of the risk posed by isolated expansive soils not encountered within the scope of this investigation. The 2 test borings were located in such a manner as to afford the most com- prehensive view of the subsurface conditions in relation to the proposed residential structure. Anomalous conditions may exist. Should further re- commendations be required, please consult our office. n n u u v in C ---I-o P z PI m D F 0 COUNTY RD NO 7 D p m m Z _z r 66083' r O rl n 4 D Z =11 o z13 I 0 I �o A., I =� N of'1 In 27 C OR-< -Tinig rn 0 X) 'O on an --I XI q�q�jj rn O It) (n -I r r; z rI r gD ZN 2 t� > R 659.37' aG ,--... / 2 z u / Li -kw z ® ^ / % ft b \)} 9 20 v) "J nx _ in / u } � o � \ / � ) u /§§ / < ~ e « y $ 5ctin mum e S g N. � u} � a ) % \ � � \ m ) § ) m P8 §/§ 3 �� r� / in— 8noo « k - aSnj � j § ebbs »� j / / \% \ \ ) } � j \ � \ \ \ \ ( \ § >\ � \� � o \ 3� ) j / \ ) & 2 } Gq { / ) oluz � � yKU }<7 § �f uj ®\ } � L k \ 2j ‹ # ® o . ° ° % § ZjLLJj /3 < ® % ° ° ° ® d § / z < 2 � \ j < ua® 3 6 \i- ccD § o a , 03 -J lultotJJ < ztag e§ aof7o® / o — ma aoazv) VI@2 , uo urOVlmaCL � zz \ 2s... 2gMSGAIlliRar % NI al § J / / \ 3 k » . al & a « d ) u % N | % / ] _ / \ w . E: JN j> \ 1 / o & < / \ § \ \ a i \ 0 \d k d % ® . 0 8 0 4 g o - z IT z )� k > W9 W® 4 id § TIllIiIIIllIlIIIIt , | l | | ! | ! I11IIlJ1tIIIIIlII 2 « !1333 N0IDIA313 I 0 — ' U � v _lc ! >, U a) b U r-- al x E +-1 0 U) S_ 0 (.., 10 _c r c a-.' .--• U) el) 3 J a) 01 - a) O 4.) U c) •r - L ^•r.. . a) .... r0 >, >, >, 01 1— E >, 0 N .F) -1., a O a r. J C., GJ CO -O .C V) o > - o ^ CO O1 ,— >., ^ I 43 v— ::) >, S._ •.- o F^ -0 • ^ N >, — S_ - ro a) r W S_ W rp c/5 CU W L.J r— L v1 ^ 01 ? r— J - • ? } LL U +) O CO O U U +.) C) O O O CO CO a) a) >, d C "0 Q C) C) O) c: Q Q V) 0 3 Y a) a) (.1 U 3 a) w W rc) r • 1../) O S. V1 (O rt3 -0 4/) N J 0. S_ ••-• Q a) Q S_ s- >, ca[ Q O } 4-, VI C VI C ^ C +, C 4-1- 3 3 W F- +-, w F-- ^ 0 0 ^ 0 V) r0 MX ^ 0 ^ 01 4/) CO E F J (I) S-. .) s.- d _J a) d r0 J S. J •.- J S_ Q d U - L) V1 () 3 4/) 3 E .n (..) J` vCr) LA L 1 V) w F- I I U- (:) (D .--I V) O. O O CJ w W .-+ I J ,C z V1 2 C] 0. *-4 N I-- :E: Li_ W C7 • F✓ Q Z 0. Z LL („ V) 3 • O O- w • Q 00 U IT: A: LA J (0 7 O F- • Q1 ►--- 0. O L.)N 0. rn O V7 Z cl- Co — I— LA tL In i .--IS_ O a) C.— V) O, • Cl- I— a.-I > !- J C.): CY W C:) V) V) • w J J > C-4-4. N• 01 ¢7 I.n a c �j �1-- • . . .-4 r; ia' .--. LL -j .--I •--I •-r r-I F- E N • .--I .--I .--I •--I .--I (7 V•) I- 4-) .-4 LIJ Q LLJ • Li_ I-- .. .. z o CI- F-- Cll. .11.- ¢ O 0. I.L C) C5 F- w d F- 0. U O Co O Q Z J O W V W CY 1-• .-4 C] 47 O 7 Ns. 40 t0 Lc) 01 -4 Co CV in 40 W Q F- W Q, C. 01 O U-) cn f---. (V LO N o V) I- Wit •--I •--I N .-••I .--I .--I •-•I CV •-• ►-- w r•-• 0. a O O d Q E U E E O r V) = O In O Lc) F— F— M in I. .--I r+ M LA n •--I •-• Cl W W C W C] •rLL W - . J CI') .-I CV x y I RESULT OF SWELL - CO NSOL \TION TEST FIG: 4. II CONItANt/ WWIIto with.,, In - - . Z 0 I T t d X (N/ / a W I I .-+ I I AI wnwo I 1 ,. 0 N ni - N I 7 . I 1Y 0. Xr1".. -.-_ 0 I V-- _.__ • _I_, 1 _ T� 0µp ESSl ON Or SArl{aA tED SAMI�LE UNDER INC RrASED PRESSURE { I —1_. — .----*—rte_-.J-. ►r( o,. i'sION UNDID CON tANI re ism I DUI TO w.ttMD 1 i PRESSURE APPLIED IN KSF L r i- = _ -11. - _ � 0. 1 1 .0 10 100 1000 10 ,000 TIME IN MINUTES SAMPLE ML, trace clay, trace micaceous, trace weathered, light brown TEST HOLE NO. 1 DEPTH 3 FT: NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT X 19.7 NATURAL DRY DENSITY 123.7 PCF LOCATION NW4, Section 15, T1N, R68W,. 6th P.M. CUSTOMER Mr. L. Mueller RESULT OF SWELL - CONSOL \TION TEST FIG: 4. T I l Wail CONSTANT►MINI bin wetness I - 7 Z O z e. W 1 1 l - I 1 .--• TI I warn*l I1RT1Mo 1 1......V\14:Ne\ ._. N I . r d V I ; M P RRES3rON O !wT aw+LU r S MILE UNDER 'NCR 4.5F D PRESSURE . ` ;71I '1_ ___._1 i • \I o*.I I 005, MMP I 1 COM TOM,faI 111111 - _ ._ _ - J OUP TO ONION* 0. 1 1 .0 1 C X00 PRESSURE APPLIED IN KSF - , i f - - 1 1 I 0. 1 1 .0 10 100 1000 0,000 TIME IN MINUTES SAMPLE CL, .SP, silty, slightly blocky, dense, light brown TEST HOLE NO. 1 DEPTH 7 FT. NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT X 9,6 NATURAL DRY DENSITY_ 114.7 PCF LOCATION NW' , Section 15, T1N, R68W, 6th P.M. CUSTOMER Mr. L. Mueller - RESULT OF SWELL - CONSOL' \TiON TEST FIG: 4. !mil N!OMf•M f WWI i+l 10 NlflllM z O N d X W � I I � I +{ I � rt z ; 1 O I n � in W • 0. V , IIIILEUMDRINCRLED E53iONO 1t•TUR•1@U Z i PRE3J R£ i° i'i •w uwflfl COw IAr .1 5W.1 oa ,o wn- .1� (1 0. 1 .0 I0 00 PRESSURE APPLIED IN KSF 0. 1 1 .0 10 100 1000 1 (, ,000 TIME IN MINUTES SAMPLE CLST„ dense, very blocky, waxy weathered, gray TEST HOLE NO. 1 DEPTH 15 FT. NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT X 14.9 NATURAL DRY DENSITY 111.9 PCF LOCATION NW4, Section 15, T1N, R68W, 6th P.M. CUSTOMER Mr. L. Mueller A A FAIGIkIFFQS t ♦SSArI♦TFS INc_ RI-.:"rrw 1 :WL , - _:,N Li. ATION T' .,T is I - �L r♦ i 1'�°,.COMIAttt r11SNMr WI 10 to 1?UIS i 'do „,7__________,.____ r___. ,. tea_ Z r a W 4-,,, , I ge I...........,,,,,,,/ A , I ? i lit C WM NM ___i .1...s.. :, 4 7 Z Nn$- 1 f L T - W r • NK EI A. V I I I I -.-----L-- - -__ �_ - . . . �I� - -. 1r1 A I t `RESStON Ot SAT 'RAT[U / S LE UNDER INC AT •3 AE3 11f { I a PRESSURE lr r—t—f 40 T t�$10D16::44:10$>.raiMo wt rr 'sun 0. 1 1 .O I0 11:0 PRESSURE APPLIED IN KSF . - 1 t 1 - - --1' - -- - - -I 0.1 100 1000 0 ,c, ,, ,, TIME IN MINUTES SAMPLE CL, trace CLST-MLST, silty, highly weathered, micaceous TEST HOLE NO. 2 DEPTH 5 FT. NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT X 13.8 N.ITURAL DRY DENSITY_ 114.4 ►CF LOCATION NW', Section 15 T1N, R68W, 6th P.M. CUSTOMER Mr. L. Mueller A A rut_IWeelle A ACC .I IATCC lair RESULT OF SWELL -- CONSOL t1TION TEST FIG: 4. ' \ H COIQ?.M P IIIUSS lr. t , 2 Na. I► _ 1 X ffflR. TNT I 1 1 \ , I _ • I 1 i at d V I � I S MR LE UNDER INCli 0 SAT p��/.SE PRESS RE 10 .If IIOr{/NOII CON 1*51 PS Vigil I 1 ow 10 ORf 0 1 .0 ! CI I00 PRESSURE APPLIED IN KSF _ o . 1 1 .0 10 100 1000 10 ,00C- TIME IN MINUTES SAMPLE CLST, dense, blocky, waxy. grAy TEST HOLE NO. 2 DEPTH 10 FT. NATURAL MOISTURE CONTENT s 22 .5 NATURAL DRY DENSITY 113.5 PCF LOCATION NW' , Section 15, T1N, 6th P.M. CUSTOMER Mr. L. Mueller • A CIJ#ILleebt ! A CeArl A?CC liar NOTE THIS DEPTH SHOULD BE CONSISTANT / FOR THE FULL WIDTH OF THE r BACKFILL AREA. ; fiyi FIRM TAMPING (I8") TO PREVENT SETTLEMENT OF CKF1LL \ / kb \ "1 --1 °° N - z = III 'IIII-III- N' z d MINIMUM SLOPE 12 IfTT11 IN FIRST 10' !I ' CRITICAL BACKFILL AREA TN LIGHTLY TAMP >< , SUGGESTED BACKFILL DETAIL THE USE OF THIS DETAIL IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED TO ALL'OR FOR FUTURE SETTLING OF BACKFILL AREA , WHICH WOULD ALIOW .PO' HIG OF DRAINAGE WATER AND EVENTUALLY CREATE STRUCTURAL PR'OBLEMS ., IEGRADINC OF BACKFILL SHALL BE DONE WHEN IT SHOWS SIGNS OF SETTLEMENT , THE EXISTENCE OF PONOINC AREAS AROUND FOUNDATION WALLS . I • I. 1 . -1I� = II _ WINDOW SILL " 11 1,n' ' 2 II 11! —e5 EACH SIDE 111 OPENING _ 101 _it nt 3 i Gy�tpr'r l UVt U! I = D 2 7 1I/2°EXP. JOINT — SLAB II511FE L L-� lli Z_ PAPER-' F� nVOID .�-r�qi; — z-2, DOWELS N 1;• :, .� LONG �• �� CAISSON DRAIN TILE SHOULD BE U INSTALLED WHEN 1. it BEDROCK IS ENCOUNTERED + i AT BASEMENT LEVEL C (-43" CLEAN SAND B GRAVEL (WELL GRADED) •4 DRAIN TILE MIN. SLOPE OF I/8" PER FT. "DAYLIGHTED" OR OTHER SUITABLE OUTLET (OUTSIDE DRAIN TILE) DETAILS OF PERIPHERAL GRAVEL DRAIN TWO ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE METHODS OF INSTALLATION COMPACTED FILL SPECIFICATIONS GENERAL NOTES Owner or owners shall appoint a soil engineer or his representative to con- trol the backfill compaction. The soil engineer shall approve: 1 . Material 2. Method of Placing 3. Compaction Soil engineer shall then issue to owner written approval of the completed fill . Two (2) types of soil used for compacted fill are (1) clayey or silty mater- ials, non-swelling, or (2) cohesionless free draining materials. CLAY & SILTY MATERIAL Preparation of Natural Subsoil Topsoil shall be removed completely from natural ground. The area to be filled is then plowed and harrowed, moistened and compacted as' heretofore specified. Placement of Fill No brush , decomposed, frozen or perishable materials, or foreign materials, or stone greater than six (6) inches in diameter are to be used as fill mat- erials. The fill materials -- clayey or silty -- shall be distributed even- ly and uniformly, free from formation of lenses, or layers of material dif- fering from the surrounding materials . The material shall be delivered on the fill surface at a uniform rate. Any concentration of travel tending to cause ruts and uneven compaction shall be avoided. All ruts and other hol- lows deeper than six (6) inches in depth shall he regraded and compacted prior to placement of another layer of fill . Fill material shall be spread in horizontal layers by approved methods, and shall not he greater than six (6) inches in thickness after compaction. Moisture Control The materials in each layer, as compaction proceeds , shall contain the mois- ture required for optimum compaction as determined by the soils engineer. This optimum moisture content shall be uniform throughout by adding water on the fill surface. It may be required to add water to the backfill materials in the excavation. Methods of Compaction When the moisture content and the spread layer is satisfactory, as outlined above, the layer is then compacted by a method approved by the soils engi- neer, to a minimum compaction of 90% of Proctor Density, for fill supporting Page 2 CLAY & SILTY MATERIAL , Cont. Methods of Compaction, cont. only floor slabs, and to a 95% Proctor Density for fill supporting founda- tion structures. Frequent density test of the fill shall be taken tc con- form to the Proctor test taken of each typical fill material . The normal procedure for the first trial compaction is to have four to eight (4-8) passes of a sheeps-foot roller. The roller shall be of the type that additional weight may be placed upon, as recommended by soils engineer. This additional weight of the roller shall be no less than 4 ,000 pounds per linear foot of drum. All rollers shall have an eight (8) inch foot project- ion, and spaced over the drum surface one tamper foot per one hundrec' (100 ) square inch of roller area. ASTM 0698 or ASTM 1557 shall he the Proctor Compaction Test. It is essenti- ally a dry density test obtained in the laboratory of the materials to be used as fill . . See ASTM Tentative Methods of the Test for moisture-density relations of soil . COHESIONLESS MATERIALS The cohensionless free draining material , such as sand or gravels, shall be deposited in uniform layers as outlined above. Approved method by the soils engineer shall be adopted , namely by use of (1 ) treads of a crawler type tractor (2) by surface vibrators , (3) by pneumatic rollers, or (4) by hand or power tampers . The thickness of the compacted horizontal layer shall not exceed six (6) inches. The material shall have the necessary moisture to aid in the compaction. The relative density (dry) of the compacted layer shall be determined by the standard method of test for, Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils - ASTM D 2049 . / e,,+-Cflq,” d^Nt t 4 �. yrynDfyk *' ` ENGINEERS & ASSOCIATES, INC_ iiDNAH,„ 1 Civil, Surveying, Soil-Pock Mechanics, Structures and Foundations RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OWNER The Denver area is notorious for high swelling clay. Foundation soils remain relatively stable UNLESS there is a change in moisture content. We consider both surface water and ground water as the cause for most problems that owners have. Surface water can be controlled with the help of the builder and the owner by diverting all drain off water from the roof and surrounding yard away from the foundation walls. Controlled watering is to be exercised at all times near the foundation walls and exterior slabs. Sprinkling system is to be a minimum distance of six (6) feet from the walls and water sprinkling OUTWARD at all tines. We recommend hand watering near the walls. All landscaping is to be done with the object of providing and main- taining positive drainage -- NO WATER TRAPS. Flowers and shrubs that require frequent watering are NOT to be planted near the foundation walls . Flower beds have a tendency to allow seepage of surface water into the back- fill area causing a lateral force against the foundation walls when the expansive soils "swell " resulting in unsightly cracks. Splash blocks are NOT TO BL REMOVED from any of the downspouts or outside faucets . As most basements are finished at a later date, the owner is to be pre- cautioned to provide the required air space at the top or bottom of non- bearing partition walls . This will avoid any structural damage and involvement in the future. These recommendations are made for your protection. If excessive water is allowed to seep into the foundation soil and collect under the interior slab, this will cause the soil to "swell " -- resulting in pressure under the slab which will then heave (push upward) causing cracks and strain on the walls . The BUILDER is to provide positive drainage around the walls of the foun- dation -- but it is the responsibility of the OWNER to maintain good positive drainage at all times. '$n :,,,fh Lipan • Dr aver. Comrade R0223 • 3113-93A "i423 it p 'I e. O. CHURCH, INC. CONSULTING GEOLOGICAL ENGINEER C 165 MADISON STREET • SUITE B • DENVER, COLORADO 80206 • (303) 321-8417 8 .g' • 4 GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION PROPOSED MUELLER RESIDENCE 40 ACRE TRACT SOUTH '_, SOUTH ,, NORTHWEST 4 SECTION 15 , T1N, R68W WELD COUNTY , COLORADO • J 7 I J Prepared For: Mr. and Mrs. Lavern Mueller 7129 Otis Court Arvada, Colorado 80003 i Job No. 255 June 5, 1980 i 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS SCOPE 1 CONCLUSIONS 1 a SITE CONDITIONS 1 1 PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION 2 yj GEOLOGIC SETTING 2 GEOLOGIC HAZARDS 3 1 CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS 5 1 Residence Construction 5 Well Construction 6 A ISDS Construction 6 ,7 LIMITATIONS 7 FIG. 1 - SITE PLAN FIG. 2 - SUBSIDENCE HAZARD MAP i ..x I l I -41 SCOPE This report presents the results of a geologic investigation for a 40 acre 13 tract which is the south 4, south 4, northwest a, Section 15, T1N, R68W, Weld County, Colorado. The report presents a description of geologic conditions , existing underground mine conditions , and recommendations for the construction of the proposed residence and appurtenant facilities which are influenced by rl ,J geologic conditions. The report was prepared on the basis of data developed during research and field investigations, as well as our experience with similar v74 conditions. CONCLUSIONS 11 1. The near surface soil and bedrock consists of clay and claystone of the Cretaceous Laramie Formation. There are scattered sandstone and lignite beds interlayered in the claystone. The lower 80 to 125 feet of the °It Laramie Formation, which occurs at depths of 275 to 400 feet at this site, consists of sandstone, shale and several coal beds . The Fox Hills Formation , which is the primary aquifer in the area , underlies the Laramie Formation with wells penetrating typically to depths ranging from 400 to 600 feet in the area. j 2. Potential geologic hazards in the area include near surface expansive xi clay and claystone bedrock and a subsidence hazard associated with underground coal mine operations. 3. We believe a single family residence may be constructed at this site with a low risk of damage. The residence, well and individual sewage disposal system (ISDS) should be constructed as recommended in this report. In general , an engineered foundation system designed to resist expansive soils and bedrock should be installed to resist the swell potential . The potential for damage due to subsidence can be reduced by a properly constructed residence, ISDS and domestic well . The drilling of the domestic well should be inspected by a representative of our office. SITE CONDITIONS The investigated site is a 40 acre parcel of agricultural land. The site '1 slopes gently to the east-northeast at grades ranging from 2% to 5%. At the 3 1 -2- "1 time of our investigation the site was vacant of structures. Surface vegetation varied and included native grasses , weeds and alfalfa. There are several irri- gation ditches which cross the property as shown on Fig. 1. There is no evi- dence of subsidence from underlying mine workings such as potholes or depres- • sions in the proposed building area. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION A single family residence with appurtenant well and individual sewage dis- posal system (ISDS) and barn and machine shop are proposed at this site at loca- tions shown on Fig. 1. The proposed residence is to be a one story house with a partial basement. The type of construction of the barn and machine shop were not defined at the time of our investigation. There is an 8 inch water main in ,] the county road adjacent to the property, but the Left Hand Water District which 7 owns the water line does not have sufficient water to sell taps. .1 GEOLOGIC SETTING The investigated 40 acre site is located east of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains in an area which is subject to slow erosion. There is thin (less than 3 feet) eolian silt and sand deposits underlain by stiff clay soils. Bedrock in the area consists of claystone with interlayered sandstone and lig- f nice of the Cretaceous Laramie Formation underlain by sandstone of the Fox Hills Formation at depths of 400 to 500 feet. Of specific concern at this site is the coal which occurs in the lower 80 to 125 feet of the Laramie Formation. The coal underlying the site has been mined by underground methods which will be discussed later in the report. Liter- 1 ature indicates that approximately 80 feet above the coal seams is a relatively competent sandstone layer which is used as a marker bed in the formation. 1 -1 -3- -] GEOLOGIC HAZARDS There are two primary geologic hazards which exist at this site and include a potential for subsidence due to underground coal mining at the site, and expansive soils . Each of the potential geologic hazards will be discussed be- .] low and recommendations will be discussed later in this report. Our investigation of the coal mining in the area included review of liter- ature and acquisition of data including: (1) Coal Mine Subsidence and Land Use Over the Boulder-Weld Coal Field, Boulder and Weld Counties , Colorado, Colorado Geological Survey, Engineering Geology Publication Number 9 by Amuedo and Ivey, - Geologic Map of Boulder, Fort Collins , Greeley Area, USGS Map I 855-G by .a1 Roger B. Colton, and the review of mine maps for the Eagle Mine at the Colorado Division of Mines , the US Bureau of Mines Map Repository, and the Sunflower Energy Company (the operator of the Eagle Mine) . Our review of literature and maps indicates the Eagle Mine which was operated by the Imperial Coal Company rry _J (a subsidiary of Sunflower Energy Company) undermined most of Section 15. The specific area of the investigated site was entirely undermined using the room and pillar mining method. Approximately 10.4 feet of coal was removed at a ' depth of 330 feet below the proposed residence. The map indicated at least 67% of the coal was extracted with 33% of the coal left as pillars. The records indicate that the mining beneath the proposed residence was done in 1950 and that mining in the eastern most portions of the 40 acre parcel was done as late i as 1964. Results of the Amuedo and Ivey investigation indicate there are low and severe risk hazards areas within the property as shown on Fig. 2. Two specific items in the Amuedo and Ivey report indicate that "local miners who y have worked in the . . . Eagle . . . report that while the roof stone of these mines is prone to collapse, an "ironstone" layer occuring 12 to 80 feet above the mine workings tends to stop further upward caving" and "soft shale and clay floors jwere reported in the . . . Eagle . . . . . . . It should be anticipated that mines with hard floors and standing pillars may have a greater percentage of remaining -4- c voids than those with soft floors." The indication from the Amuedo and Ivey report indicate that at the Eagle Mine subsidence is relatively rapid after the area is mined. The subsidence or caving at the Eagle Mine is anticipated to move ,! upward to a "ironstone" layer consisting of quartsite sandstone 12 to 80 feet above the mine workings. The severe risk areas identified on Fig. 2 by the Amuedo and Ivey investi- gation are due to adjacent unmined areas. A 1976 map available at Sunflower Energy Company indicated all adjacent areas were mined which would increase the size of the low risk areas on the Amuedo and Ivey report to include all of the _] subject site. _nA The potential for subsidence at the area of the proposed residence was analyzed by several methods which indicate there is a low subsidence hazard risk at the property. The first method which assumes a 10% bulking in material r which subsides indicates that for an extracted layer of 10.4 feet, subsidence j will progress only approximately 100 feet above the extracted coal seam. Con- sidering that 33% of the coal was left in the ground and that the min ng was done at a depth of 350 feet, this method indicates that there should not be ! surface subsidence at the proposed residence location. A second, more sophis- i ticated method of analysis, established by the British National Coal Board, was then used to analyze the site. . As discussed in the Amuedo and Ivey report, the National Coal Board analysis does not give irrefutable results because this method is based on the Longwall method of mining rather than the room ,1 and pillar method utilized in the Boulder-Weld coal field. The National Coal Board method indicated strains ranging from 0.0012 to 0.007. The strains, when analyzed with respect to the size of structures proposed at this location, indicate a slight to appreciable potential for problems. When considering that 9 ( 1) the unadjusted maximum extracted coal seam thickness was used in the analysis _ 1 and that (2) room and pillar mining rather than Longwall mining was utilized 1 _J -5- in the Boulder-Weld coal field, we believe there is only a slight potential for damage to the proposed residence. Expansive soils and bedrock are common problems along the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains . Engineer designed foundation systems are available to reduce the risk of hazards associated with swelling soils and bedrock. The soils and foundation investigation performed concurrently with this study by AA Engineers, provides specific design and construction details for construction on expansive soils . CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS Our investigation indicates that the proposed single family residence and appurtenant facilities can be constructed at this site with a low risk of damage to construction. Design and construction recommendations are given below for three construction areas which include the residence, the well and the indivi- dual sewage disposal system. Residence Construction AThere are two possible construction methods generally acceptable in areas of potential subsidence which include a flexible foundation and a rigid foundation. Considering the added potential hazard of expansive soils , we recommend the utilization of a rigid foundation system at this site . The rigid foundation system would be similar to the drilled pier foundation system recommended in the AA Engineers ' report. We recommend construction of a full basement which is a relatively rigid structure. We specifically do not recommend split level type construction where the structure is broken at several different levels and has variable loading conditions. We recommend that any attached garage at this location be . :0 isolated on a separate foundation. We recommend a wood framing system and -6- wood construction above grade. Cinder block, brick and brick veneer should be avoided. Wood type construction is relatively flexible and can absorb slight movement with little or no damage to the structure. A floating floor system typical of construction on expansive soils is also well adapted to areas of potential subsidence and should be constructed at this _ site. A system which will provide flexibility in utility lines is mandi- tory. The flexibility must be designed into all below ground utilities .01 which may include any or all of gas , electric, water and sewer services. If the services go through foundation walls , we recommend a minimum of 4 inches of movement in all directions where the utility passes through the wall . If the utility goes through a floor slab, differential movement between the utility and the slab must be possible. In design of the structure, we recommend that, where possible, doors be staggared rather than being aligned on opposite walls and that large picture windows be held to a minimum. Well Construction Well construction at this site will be relatively expensive. The entire site has been undermined according to mine records and no large pillars exist through which a domestic well can be inexpensively drilled. j We anticipate that the well will have to be cased and cemented to a depth on the order of 350 to 400 feet, from which depth more normal drilling will be possible to the Fox Hills aquifer. We anticipate that the total depth of the well will range from 500 to 600 feet. ISDS Construction There are no unusual design requirements for the ISDS other than con- 1 structing the absorption field a minimum of 1 foot below floor drains and .4 -7- the septic tank. We recommend that the sewer lines be constructed with a minimum slope of 3% rather than the typical 1.5% grade. The increased slope is recommended because in case of minor subsidence, the increased slope will reduce the risk of the reversal of slope of the sewer line which would cause backing up of the sewer line. I LIMITATIONS A Our investigation was based on a review of published literature and data available through public agencies and private concerns . No original field data , collection was performed as a part of this investigation. We recommend the 7 inspection of the water well drilling process to confirm data collected as a part of our investigation. In addition, specific design and construction recom- ' mendations in the AA Engineers ' Report No. 80121 should be utilized and inspected. If we can be of further service in discussing the contents of this report or in the analysis of the proposed construction from a geologic point of view, please call . E.O. CHURCH, INC. • �nr.uuuuuu�� Edward 0. Church, P.E. ' 13179 Geological Engineer uV^'` cC .,00 " EOC/sc mrnuuurt,.. (3 copies sent) cc: AA Engineers 888 South Lipan Denver, CO 80223 • OUR INVESTIGATION INDICATED THERE IS A LOW RISK OF SUBSIDENCE DAMAGE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND APPURTENANT FACILITIES WHEN DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO RECOMMENDATIONS DISCUSSED IN THE REPORT. :.l En ..RY \ / //or/2 /the 5%z S%z WW'/) �: ,// ? *Cho'? /5, rig., e.lek/ ' C� y6he/.tr Se// ?Aviv'%%%%®€4%®@®€®€®@ Q O ® 0 0 E? , 1 ,y /k EM-n/Ke ln�\\o---,....c____0_, .... (�a°.u✓) // �� \ /J // . x.4n e 5'I \v �.� rev rt . `w o I f � � %G :/; Y' / o` n� VJ....i �ark J fa/K/ -/ \ ..a • I \ 9°v°xd(�,o �t r I J an a chi ' .9. 1 i ift I claS 26E WEST 'a CORNER aI. , \ —\ — N89° 50'50"W\2( SECTION 15 r \ \ • V. e '-A o 0 ',4\ s \ Po L Z3 1 ti 3� N j JOB NO. 255 - 4-tale Coal Mint Dj' Tunctbn Qe _. .._ _. N / ea/7 I USE Permit / V �i . ni lI t)eouSe Partner e� h lI © Nafienal ' v r • / file Mire COCA 'O:- A/C SCALE 1" = 2000' VICINITY MAP 39°48'55"E / 2690.71 '— T 2 I I y 2660.71 i / / \ _ i I \'s/ N m I N / \ �_\ � \ • 40.757 AC. o \ o \A \ mod'. k4/ to 18' / A N \ `� l 3. 18'— �'� ��/h /me 5". 5".'/z4/0/4:75". 5".'/z4/0/4:71,5". 5".'/z4/0/4:71,-- � l % s 5ec. 's r. ,w., e Ga w . / g CENTER OF SECTION 15 / l l -:1 I "- SCALE 1" = 200' SITE PLAN FIG. I '1 rr:,�y:mL,, y I ' ' FJ ' SITE , � /' 9 .c.:" SCALE 1" = 2000' • EXPLANATIONS: ..1 [7] SEVERE HAZARD �, LOW HAZARD J NO SUBSIDENCE HAZARD MAPPED FROM: ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY NO. 9, GROUND SUBSIDENCE AND LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS OVER COAL MINES IN THE BOULDER-WELD COAL FIELD, COLORADO PLATE 6, I AMUEDO AND IVEY FOR THE COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY • SUBSIDENCE HAZARD MAP J FROM ENVIRONMENTAL GEOLOGY NO. 9, COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY i JOB NO. 255 •FIG. 2 y T 0-co 'cc,- 9C RICHARD D. LAMM *i * JOHN W. ROLD GOVERNOR # _ •+'♦* Director 1846 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 715 STATE CENTENNIAL BUILDING — 1313 SHERMAN STREET DENVER,COLORADO 80203 PHONE (303)839-2611 July 1 , 1980 Ms. Vickie Traxler Weld County Department of Planning Services 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Ms. Traxler: RE: MUELLER GEOLOGIC HAZARD PERMIT #3 WELD COUNTY We have reviewed the Geologic Hazards Permit #3 for LaVern and Mary Mueller, subsurface investigation by ADNAN Engineers & Associates , and geologic investigation by E. 0. Church, Inc. The reports by Church and ADNAN provide good evaluations and recommendations for the conditions affecting the site. Mr. Church' s investigation indicates that the entire site has been undermined but feels that a single family residence may be constructed with a low risk of damage. The strain calculations made by Mr. Church appear to bear out this conclusion. Mr. Church' s and Mr. Adnan' s recommendations for foJndation construction , utility installation , individual sewage disposal system speci- fications, well construction, and field inspections should be closely observed. If their recommendations are followed, we have no objection to approval of this application. • Sincerely, LLAyvt 'Julia E. Turney Engineering Geologist JET/gp cc: LUC • �';•i �� 6Y col J(f,1. i3RO is L ', -RECEIVEED YFE,';tetr �Yeon,3lg&Crri;yx GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST . . . KEY TO THE FUTURE X • FIELD CHECK FILING NUMBER: C[jP-57:80:5 DATE OF INSPECTION: march 11. 1980 NAME: LaVerne and Mary Mueller REQUEST: Residence and Small Farm LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Si S-1-, NWi Section 15, TIN, R68W LAND USE: N Pasture/Natural Grasses E Agricultural S Pasture/Dairy �9 Agricultural/NOAA. Tower • ZONING: N Agricultural Zone LOCATION: 2i miles east and + mile north E Agricultural Zone of the Town of Erie S Agricultural Zone • w Agricultural Zone COMMENTS: Surrdunding properties are primarily 40 acre tracts. The NOAH/NCAR tower is to the west. Parcel is in pasture/natural grasses at the present time. No structures_ _ exist on the property. • BY: `kC'x1r •� �fl �L�l4 REFERRAL LIST to A_?PL_ .ANT La Verne and Mary Mue11e_ CASE n Geologic Hazard Development Permit #3 REFERRALS SENT OUT OII: June 18, 1980 z U REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: July 3, 1980 c ra r=a H z U U o ra P. CO1-4 fa o U O c REFERRALS RECEIVED Co\LY s;( • County Health y0 X :;J • County Engineer Colorado Geological Survey c/o Walter R. Junge or Julia M. Turney 1313 Sherman Street Room 703 • Denver, Colorado 80203 Hello