The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3115 Chase Dr - Special Inspections/Engineering - 08/16/2010Excavation Quality Assurance Observation (Open -Hole): CTLITHOMPSON Per the client's request, a representative of CTL has visually observed the soils exposed within the excavation at the site referenced below. The following summarizes our observations and opinions at the time of our visit. 3I Oc)aos � Client: NarJ►�h� ' E'�11M'1Y1�' Site Address: 3115 Chime, Drive 11M Job #: r0 6 Lot:41 04: Filing: Date:'? $0 010 Contact:Bobo,A Subdivision. ia► � Background Information: Soils Report by: C_TL I Y ft3Cft Date: I 211W41 Job#: EMNAS-120 Anticipated Soil Profile:! S W 1 C-� Mebj, bYAl�f\ �'�� Foundation Plan by: CTL1Th6:W"l Gt" /zbt / ! � Date: 32010 Job#- S FO 16 ViQ•06G Anticipated foundation type? ❑ spread footing ❑ wall on grade 0 footing with voids ❑ pad and grade beam ❑ drilled piers ❑ other (describe) Observed Soil Profile S AT Notes: r i r +i ,j 1 ri tt �t.iTT IL +t tt�yr t f - -1 i 1 i T r4+4 7 ti i IT Ti + t _ r" f- t1 IT fi is �- t ' I , Li- _lit T f 11_. 7 r+il r t TTT I1 Summary of opinions: ■ It is our opinion that the exposed soils are generally consistent with those anticipated. ❑ Rejected (2nd observation required) Corrective action: Revised 2010: CTL I Thompson, Inc. 1 351 Linden Street, Suite 140, Ft. Collins, CO 80524 Footing Ouality Assurance Observation CTLITHOMPSON Per the client's request, a representative of CTL Thompson has visually observed the footing forms under construction at the site referenced below. The following summarizes our observations and opinions at the time of our visit. »Da�s3 Client: �W-W For NyAod4m Site Address: 3115 CPa D IVE F Co11��s,CA Job #: SFacaAto-amc p. Lot: fj!L_ Blo Filing: Date: 30 2010 Contact: Subdivision: Foundation Plan Information-- -- Plan By: C7L n N%m 5T�UtAvol Date: 312-O ZO 16 Job#: S F(i t6gU& Ftg sizes: 1 2`a xi"A Pad sizes: ZOY20Y% Concrete on -site? ■ yes , ❑ no, (+/- % ftg poured -0- ) Are the footing forms free of loose material, frost, water and or ice, roots, etc? \ yes, ❑ no Are the Footing / Pad form sizes in general conformance to the above foundation plan? ■ yes, ❑ no Is the footing/pad reinforcing steel in -place or on site per the above foundation plane? ■ yes, ❑ no WSeather: m , Notes: N!! iiiii � �a•A� sun as MEN Sol, "MORMW" RUM iiiii■■i!/!■■■i�■' eio a v.4k r. ii■■ILUMniiin/iwd Summary of Opinions ■ It is our opinion that the footing formwork is in general conformance with the foundation design referenced above. ❑ It is our opinion that the footing formwork differs significantly from the foundation design referenced above (2 d observation required). Corrective action: Revised 2010: CTL I Thompson, Inc. 1 351 Linden Street, Suite 140, Ft. Collins, CO 80524 Reinforcing Steel Ouality Assurance Observation C T L I T H O M P S O N Per the client's request, a representative of CTL Thompson has visually observed the reinforcement within the formwork under construction at the site referenced below. The following summarizes our observations �� j 3 and opinions at the time of our visit Client: I- IA4 F g- Site Address: 3t1.5 C �tascVI s400t 5."iAF-jHt�� F+.C�1wsI0_0 Raj QQC.L14.% ,CoLc24uC., Job #: 5 t CA(v- voca Lot: 'T Block: Filing: Date: c to Contact: Subdivision: l� �,T l- t WI (, K Reinforcin2 Plan Information Plan By: Q_1L1T C--n `r,4 IL,--. Date: o3 ao 2eto Job#: Ub lUcICv, ooCo Reinforcing Type(s): ?L� A. ❑ footing ® foundation wall ❑ grade beam 0 pier cap ❑ structural slab ❑ slab -on -grade ❑ column ❑ other Wall / Grade Beam Reinforcing Steel Grade Horizontal VertJTies 1 coo (Z)47 '1 40 -c- 3 4 5 6 7 8 LIFER Ground ® Installed - Location 9M S12M Ei ❑ Not Observed Max/Min wall height observed: 3=10" / V-10 If void forms -are required, are they installed as recommended? h ®yes ❑no Required thickness: in. Concrete on -site? ❑ yes 0 no (% poured = +/- ) Weather: 1.6. 4 R-ldt'rm� ^, 10' F avemUsL Notes: iii�ii■■iion .iart¢t#i ■ ii Ism ��,., i �ii<.■■■■■■ �uu■■■■r�ii■■ii■i■M81 : �'� '■i::i■ - ■■■■■■■■mu■■■w■ ■ ■n ■ ■ a 0909� � ��■■� ■■■g ■r!■H� �It� ■I Nr ■■ ■ r arti ■■■� ■�i ►n9■ ■■r�i■r �■#■;f■�i■■■�t1 ■■■■■■■*■■■ Ain MMO Summary of Opinions ® It is our opinion that the reinforcing steel observed was in general conformance with the plan. ❑ It is our opinion that the reinforcing steel observed was not in general conformance with the plan. (2°d observation required). Deficiencies noted: w_ Revised 2010: CTL I Thompson, Inc. 1 351 Linden Street, Suite 140, Ft. Collins, CO 80524 Perimeter Drain / Dampproofing Ouality Assurance Observation CTLITHOMPSON Per the client's request, a representative of CTL has visually observed the perimeter drain and/or dampproofing at the site referenced above. The following summarizes our observations and opinions at the time of our visit. 7?) t CnQ0 53 Client: "I+A+ Foe HvM4,4t kr Site Address: 31V5 14A9_ Dave -'�=► S.-lbFMb Fi fzet i Qucl400 Job #: SFDIC09c.o. oc5c_o Lot: MA Block: Filing: Date: Ito Contact: Subdivision: ►ate FAz-i Qc-,m6es g y-o •'407- 1'3CO3 Proiect Specifications Foundation Plan By: ��MKC-J, Dated L_Zc1%a Job# SFolc.6�Lv.C*rv. Geotechnical Report By: Date C,�� Jobs FZOttZ95- IZU . Recommended Drain type? Exterior perimeter ❑ Interior ❑ other Observations Perimeter drain observed around: ❑ Basement ® Crawlspace ❑ Other: Where does the perimeter drain discharge? ❑ Daylight a Sump pit ❑ Subdivision drain Dampproofmg observed around: ❑ Basement a Crawlspace ❑ All backfill areas Drain items observed: 0 Trench ® Pipe Only ❑ Pipe w/ Sock ❑ Gravel ❑ Fabric ❑ Sump Pit Comments 2N�� i-ii ■ ■■■i�■■■�■� ■■■■■■■a■■■■■■ ■■MM i •�� i a 'm' u � i ii�■■i: ■ ■ Summary of Opinions 11 It is our opinion that the foundation drain and/or dampproofing observed generally conform with the project referenced above. ❑ It is our opinion that the foundation drain and/or dampproofing observed differs significantly from the project specifications (2nd observation required). Corrective Action: M OIZQLU Feld 32055 Revised 2010: CTL I Thompson, Inc. 1 351 Linden Street, Suite 140, Ft. Collins, CO 80524