HomeMy WebLinkAboutLot Certifications - 04/05/2001FROM : Scott, Cox & Assoc. FAX NO. : 970 663 1660 Apr. 05 2001 09:43AM P1
00 - (3/552
j SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC. consulting engineers
OVERLOT GRADING OBSERVATION SCAa1,14 rsz�as-or,.o�
CLIENT: 3(r c-D DATE: 4•-5—o i
�JaO A•wrw.w itir'tT.lL. LEGAL: I.vt fog I�aocu� 5,�osst� LgtF RAV4 1 fNSP. BY:
GRADING PLAN: �`�T R+I F.4g2• fig$ IZ.Oo rt.F, 1�-0
We have measured relative elevations at the above mentioned location. The observed elevations were compared to the
Grading Plan referenced above. During our observations ourrepresentarive measured the relative elevations at the lot sides
and comers. top of foundation, and lowest openings. Based upon our findings it is our opinion:
0
2
The elevations as measured are in general conformance with the above noted Grading Plan.
The elevations as measured are in general conformance with the above noted Grading Plan with the following
exceptions: .
t Cli"G
Eel
iL
J
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:
i
Other comments and/or observations: /
- 00?�l -v, wta,oTl e
Limitations:
It is our opinion that the subject lot. as graded on the above date. should not interfere with offsite slows unless the grades
are changed or barriers are created such as fences. garden terracing, sidewalks, and/or any. landscaping which may change
the cstabiishcd flow patterns by divertto�,Qr slowing runoff flow. Backfill adjacent to the residence may settle over time
and allow ondin m occur 11% K3r
p g �ti�ie,° `ou� i.� n walls. The backfill adjacent to the residence must be monitored and
maintained to ensure that
ru�t8 wdf�;t[�Ryv ,r(dp the foundation. The grades measured were compared only to the
requirements ihown on th enc grsdiptp}an. Otherminimum grading requirements which may be specified
in the soils re ort o y a ' p >� n documents are beyond the scope of this report.
ofReviewed by: Date•
i i i n ?g,7uite 0 o�elzRd.; Colorado d05.A n-nl uii;••tt ;8 Fa:; 9'W o6J-'ado
�i,. �k�/M:�Qbrulq;�.IIh-gf(ices m 3o�Jtln ;a�,�romt undnnd
FROM : Scott, Cox & Assoc. FAX -NO. : 970 663 1660 Apr. 05 2001 09:44AM P2
�p ayG� N -4 z m
b�e�a a,r cm0 m Z
M r— D A
m A L
wo °zP
�z
N j1 e <
p r '9 m
Oz p
O
m 0 'c
r c 0 m
n
D
m
s x
La' (P
P Lu
V
o � e
8" D
tP m
0
c 03
oOmUrn3 =0 m
&rrUl
D o T Wul
0 O 0
fp
a D r
0 _
r Q r 0
0�
B ° °
N W
W
A
N
� � 0
A
p J
D
tP
z E
m m
m
b 0�
0 A'
z
FROM : Scott, Cox
& Assoc.
.-T
49
JPT-Al�
' \ ` MIN, FG= 12.1 /\ /
s ;t N TYPE 12.8
` Z `
\ \ \ %°•
MIN FG= 10.1
MIN TF= 10.8
"LOT TYPE A
/ { y
O •,
MIM FG= 10.8 p
/ MIN FG= 12.6 '�. TF= 11.5
\ LOT TYPE A
MIN TF= 1.3
LOT TYPE A
\
/MIN FG— 12.2
MINTF= 12.9
LOT TYPE A
11.7 s \
A % pal
MIN FGn 9 \
f WN T� ,
-[OT TYPE B 4
MIN FG= 09.2
8 MIN TF- 09.9
\> O LOT TYPE B p6.
MIN TF= 13.0 -
pT TYPE A / n' ' F�`x pg. 8 �0
r OS MIN FG= 08.8 O
MIN TF= 09.3
p8. LOT TYPE B
3 10
MIN . FG=
MIN TF ". o =
., MIN FG= 10.1 \ -
' MIN TF= 10.8 O \ - LOT TYPE
r
"+ LOT TYPE B
MIN FG= 11.0 '.._:03
Y MIN TF= 11.7.- SWALE 10
r y LOT TYPE B
r /
6
r o
..,..:, 14
o
MN FG= 11.0
I
MN TF= 11.7 4' SIDEWALK
LOT TYPE B O CULVERT
U i
POND^ I
uerr IIAI ITY. AND