HomeMy WebLinkAboutLot Certifications - 07/25/2001 (13)Scott, Cox & Rssoc. FRX NO. : 970 663 1660 Jul. 23 2001 10:30RM P1
l�SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC. consulting engineers
G
OVER GRADING OBSERVATION 1,1111
-LOT SCA
CLIENT:CDO� DATE:
/ C39 om. A� Lid
.LEGAL:tNSP. BY:
OR_-kDrNGPL.aY7' —15rr'it- 10^ids-oOZ ^t• E� I��JO
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:
P The elevations as measured are in general conformance with the above noted Grading Plan.
(3 The elevations as measured are in general conformance with the above noted Oradin wit the fol_lo
exceptions:Eh
It is our opinion these exceptions, noted above, should not adversely change the grading scheme as shown on the
above referenced plan.
XDuring our observations our representative noted that the as measured elevations do not conform to those
indicated on the abovereferancad grading plan. However. It is our opinion the grades as measured should provide
an adequate substitute to the above referenced grading scheme. 56& 4=T14f.,L
)IL See the attached ".Os -Built" grading plan.
C The elevations measured are not in conformance to the above referenced grading plan. Deficiencies include:
Other comments and/or observations:
r'. c an S
� Sr%
r1-1 o L "
Lim' cations:
It is our opinion that :he subject lot, as graded on the above date, should not interfere with otTsite flows unless the grades
are changed or barriers are created such as fences. garden terracing, sidewalks, and/or any landscaping which may change
the established flow patterns by diverting or slowing runoff flow. Backfill adjacent to the residence may settle over dma
and allow pondirg to fl
ation walls. The backfill adjacent to the residence must be monitored and
maintained to ensure tfrom the foundation. The grades measured were compared only to the
requirements A
�ti g plan. Other minimum grading requirements which may be specified
in :he soils re 'a_ts are beyond the scope of this report.
Ztr
Res, it by: 2� = Date:
t M 9kaW rreer. Suite 0 • tt1@10inl . Galoradu a05Sa �'Ai .),r)138 Fact, 0'0' on.`.•'ri60
,n • Sawarl • :anym.m, . 4r.tmd
`FROM : Scott, Cox & Assoc. FAX NO. : 970 663 1660 Jul. 23 2001 10:31RM P2
°% J °= C i Z m
�1 ;0 M r z
s iri m
e P jmD
m A
w mD Lo J
0� � ON
3N 9A
MT
_ Lo
OO � m
O
z
L �p a9 �D
$ f11 •� �W
W
8 O D w co
LO
-°s m
C Js X
tD
a m LoLO
/
to
E CD
CO
UT
to C
LO
.mi 4� 0 n LO
!° w co ;9
v$w
m r
0 �0
I ,gym
` • to L
> J
i N 4
fff
N,q
D � �
i 0
-FROM Scott, Cox & Assoc. FAX NO. 970 663 1660
76'
7 8'
A9
- 480
82 L 84
,',; /�' NIQih�` Road
10
ow 4
7
NZ
.. ... . ... . ................
Jul. 23 2001 10:32RM P3