HomeMy WebLinkAboutLot Certifications - 03/20/2001S 1 UNYb KUUK MUr7Es 1 NU 7 rer bb r "LJ9]G
SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC. consulting engineers
r
OVERLOT GRADING OBSERVATION SCAM'Dli�-1-2r -09'0 (
CL I E%T: O n 11 IZ-00 DATE:
1 32 aj _l4►. -�
LEGAL: �oT I t, ��ocK �� Ir'oSSiC -L ,cam —IAA+ Q _ JNSP. BY:
GRADr\G PLAN: f�h�f.AtJ �Ce�: — 781 Z.OL7 1 t-�F : ^Q�iF� 4-LO- `)9
We have measured relative elevations at the above mentioned location. The observed elevations were compared to the
Grading Plan referenced above. During ourobservations ourmpresentative measured the relative elevations at the lot sides
and corners. top of foundation, and lowest openings. Based upon our findings it is our opinion:
❑ The elevations as measured are in general conformance with the above noted Grading Plan.
?!k The elevations as measured arc in general conformance with the -above noted Grading Plan with the following
It is ouropinion these exceptions, noted above, should not adversely change the grading scheme as shown on the
above referenced plan.
❑ During our observations our representative noted that the as measured elevations. donot conform to those
indicated on the above referenced grading plan. However, it is our opinion thegrades as measured should provide
an adequate substitute to the above referenced grading scheme.
See the attached "As -Built" grading plan.
❑ The elevations measured are not in conformance to the above referenced grading plan. Deficiencies include:
Other cot
Limitations:
It is our opinion that the subject lot, as graded on the above date, should not interfere with offsite flows unless the grades
are changed or barriers are created such as fences, garden terracing, sidewalks, and/or any I&"- 01131ii.Wbj,Cyh may change
the established flow patterns by diverting or slowing runoff flow. Backfill adjacent to tl�p�}�over time
and allow ponding to occur around the foundation walls. The backfill adjacent to thol i�j°sLtrm
fyred and
maintained to ensure that runoff will Flow away from the foundation. The grades t�e f re com�filtife to the
requirements shown on the above referenced grading plan• Other minimum gradingt ents whic4clfied
in the soils report or , of er constr d urnents are beyond the scope of thisikpor$
. Reviewed by' Dar e:`��'� I
• i! 10 Cran�te Street. Suite D Lpvela d .col Orado 305:13 0"nl un :•tl1 i8 •%Qiy�s�j�lt ri'�� ..'Qr03e \��•
�enmq wlOra00 .nth Oifiee5m douldrr, '.'otin"'t Lovrlmld
,I
STONYBROOK HOMES INC 970 667 2342 P.03
ELEVATIONS SURVEYEDFi
°
i
04.1 04.8
L.oad�ST
o4a
o4s ocq-
DS. E'j
® � o4-Z-
•
3
o5}
(VOTE: TIDE ELEVAn(:0(45 5NOUN WERE ON ARE BASED M).%ILT GRADING ELEVATIONS
ON TWS SURVEY PERFORMED ON 3.19.01
Jag NO. $TONYBROOK
1061-21-e-t g(An, COX i ,ASSOCIATES, INC.
°*E LOT II, BLOCK 1. FOSSIL LAKE RANCH
, C>
LE 1 Coroul EnBinedr°
SCALE 9110 Wenlu lboot. 3ulls O L°voI°,d, G°I°rede E0539 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
1-=70,0 (SIM) 663 • an Mic,". tiRADINb GEITI9910NTpI�00KF061.�1.3.1
ORAWM d
CF'H „ y c.w.m .w a, u.... eaw •, �a .0 d
No Text
FROM Scott, Cox & RSsoc. FAX NO. : 970 663 1660 Mar. 21 2001 09:35RM P1
('"SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC. consulting engineers
OVERLOT GRADING 011SERNADON sCA 1," W+-3a
CL I
LEC
. - • ._ _a1L _ _V - -
We have measured relative elevations at the above mentioned location. The observed elevations were compared to the
Grading Plan referenced above. Duringourobservations our representative measured the relative elevations at the lot sides
and comers. top of foundation. and lowest openings. Based upon our findings it is our opinion:
o The elevations as measured are in general conformance with the above noted Grading Plan.
0
a
Other eoi
The elevations as measured are in general conformance with the above noted Grading Plan with the following
It is our opinion these exceptions, noted above, should riot adversely change the grading scheme as shown on the
above referenced plan.
During our observations our representative noted that the as measured elevations do not conform to time
indicated on the aboveteferenced grading plan. However. It is ouropinionthegradesas measured should provide
an adequate substitute to the above referenced grading scheme.
See the attached "As -Built" grading plart.
The elevations measured are not in conformance to the above referenced grading plan. Deficiencies include:
Liwotatiolls:
it is our opinion that the subject lot. as graded on the above date, should not interfere with offsite flows unless the grades
are changed or barriers are created such as fences. garden terracing, sidewalks. and/or any 1 may change
the established flow patterns by diverting or slowing runoff flow. Backfill adjacent to a� over time
and allow ponding to occur around the foundation walls. The backfill adjacent to GOOD * Land
maintained to amure that runoff will flow away from the foundation. The grades rl. to the
requirements shown on the above referenced grading plan. Other minimum gradinglg(fatts which i ified
in the soils report or _ o r co d uinents are beyond the scope of thissporii
lteviewedby: C./ fir- Date: =
=ZG—d� .;
: q :;ranire Sweet, 5.,,ce 0 • l,�wl . [ulorazln so53d o'n�,>ol.ti ]a •�� :!°�•' 'AMATT
jr,.,,�WbrtWe wtth officesm iw,Mrr ;a,ro,e,m 4m•elnntl ••'rF7i;:i'! �`1"�. -�Vr�
MAR 212001
FROM : Scott, Cox & Assoc. FAX NO. 970 663 1660 Mar. 21 2001 09:36RM P2
OFI.IP+-lam,
ELEVATIONS 6U44VEY
3-19.01 . lT1
Fz -
ME
EE
OL
—"TOO of 1"041�1DA=1La1
C
ytgv� C
• e.
NOTE
TN[ ELEVATIONS SWO104 WERE ON ARE SA860
ON NE SURVEY P6F5;ORIIEO ON 9-19-01
i
4}8
048 1 oa. z.
1
p3,S
5.�
04.L
os-4
AS-51JILT GRADING ELEVATIONS
'mv Nil
aSCo1T, Cox t ASSOCIATES, KC, STONLor-K IOOIG
3-20-01 C r&wtmlro g Eneffs LOT il, EfLOGK , P0631L LAKE RLtNGFI
I' E— W* wan. &~L ante o • LOVOWA Cdl ro MOSS FORT COLLM6, COLORADO
�n s
AV* d
GPI-{ ewgtwlww.r.uaea. r. camp • Lahr • �o.e�e
v
£d Wb% :69 TOOZ TZ 'XeW 099T £99 009 : 'ON Xdd 'oossy 'g XOO }}oog ': WObd'