HomeMy WebLinkAboutLot Certifications - 04/09/2001.,
COTT, COX
engineers
CLIENT:
LEGAL:
APR 13 /o;
132-18-rW. t L-US,N Sq.
SCA Inhd 3-43"-' Za - to - o f
DATE:
INSP. BY:
GRADI\GPLAN. dAT)4 J F-�n1G,p—. 0)SIZ.0O FL.(- It- ZO-CPl
We have measured relative elevations at the above mentioned location. The observed elevations were compared to the
Grading Plan referenced above. During our observations our representative 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.
Al
❑
The elevations as measured are in general conformance with the above noted Grading Planwith the following
exceptions:
It is our opinion 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 do not conform to those
indicated on the above referenced grading plan. However, it is our opinion the grades 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 comments and/or observations:
Limitations
It is our opinion that the subject lot, as graded on the above date, should not interfere with otTsite flows unless the grades
are changed or barriers are c�eatedgy�o s fences, garden terracing, sidewalks, and/or any landscaping which may change
the established flow p rg ms� Sdt s g'R3rj�� lowing runoff flow. Backfcll adjacent to the residence may settle overtime
and allow ponding tQ-0, ''(tli�th slowing
walls. The backfill adjacent to the residence must be monitored and
maintained to ensuo2 that;Woff will flgw�atvau,from the foundation. The grades measured were compared only to the
requirements shoe qno a above referenced grading plan. Other minimum grading requirements which may be specified
in the soils report c7iFier,cgnsySuJtion$documents are beyond the scope of this report.
Reviewed bv: !/1-- y( ��/% 4 Date:
t t; Caanice 5neer 5oiie �' oceland .Colorado 805 ;A °-i,t n ,;-qt ;A rat: 970 00;-:060
' ?Jl(II II,intng,titorado with office in • 3ouiarr • ;ongmunl Loveland
0
z
ELEVATIONS 5URVEYED
&.
a.i-ml 14.4
12.1
13.6
C iw5t)
TBM-1 10.3 (B.O.W.)
7
0
'13.4'
a
13.3 Q
Top of Foundation =14.1
12.8
TWIN WASH SQUARE
13.4
13.4
14.3
13.6
(Iw5t)
11.7
09.g ( B.O.W.)
NOTE:
ONE SHOW) HERE ON ARE BASED AS -BUILT GRADING ELEVATIONS
ON THE WE SUR5UR VEYEY PERFORI"IED ON a-l-ml
JOB NO.
1061-21-10-1 STONYBROOK
DATE Sr^.�/TTr Cox t g Engineers =5r INC.
4-9-01 Consulting Engineers LOT 3, BLOCK 6, FOSSIL LAKE RANCH IST
SCALE sum Granite Street. Sure 0 • Loveland. Colorado a0538 FORT GOLLIN5, COLORADO
I' = 20.0
9
DRAWN_ (10) 663 0138 G:/CINL wG CERTS/ST0NT5F00K/i061-11-10-iDIW DAP
16.0
: 16.7--
EA
M WFG= 15.5
WN TF= 16.2
LOT TYPE A
f
. yo
MIN FGm 15.0
" = - SJ
DDITYPE A
.00K 6
fr �
F.4
MIN FG= . 13.4
MIEN TF= 14.1
LOT TYPE A
(2 3
Mai, Pc- t2-9
t2 MIN TFM
LOT TYPE A
4 \Q /
Q CYR
W w
. ZZr—
<
zzr-
�
N
^ T g p w I! Y G' °• I^ w
T C� ti
N q
C-4 I wi ,. I 2 �
(V q q))aLi
I �FLL-F yk x �r I
LJ
s j
Y r l
aih E
( O
�� �I xx- DIY ��s�..
�zzr- I
�� S 22o s
a
0
I •� to N
Sefyr CWL
}
' II IIw m
N -� a '-w ���
I zzI-
QS I I � .�
I
c MM a. �Tv
LU
LIZ���cq Lz
ku
a
c�`
W7
I I s m� W,7 .3 z I I ��
��� zf n I
F
uj
u I
n
� c.
F--'LLI
�p