HomeMy WebLinkAboutLot Certifications - 11/02/2001 (6)FROM : Scott, Cox & Assoc. FAX NO. : 970 663 1660 Oct. 29 2001 10:23PM P1
"SCOTTO COX & ASSOCIATES, INC, consulting engineers II
/V
CLIENT:
DATE_ 1 Ch LS^c71 .
L isal F►APeT"f=
LEGAL: l_ n- -I-C�. i Agn1=e-F— rNSP.BY:
GRADCNG PLAN: �►-FE-+t'.2 � I'S�_ "01- c- R"6 Lo�9-4
We have measured relative elevations at the above mentioned location. The observed elevations were compared to the
Grading Plan referenced above_ Duringourobservadons 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 am in general conforrtattoe with the above noted Grading Plan.
jd The elevations as meastrrod an in general confomlanee with the above noted Grading Plan with the following
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 treasured 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.
A See the attached "As -Built" grading plan -
The elevations measured we not in conformance to the above referenced grading plan. Deficiencies include:
Other comments and/nr observations:
(..err In ,
Lor "$,
CMa. = c
Limitations:
It is our opinion that the subject lot, as graded on the above date, should not interfere with otTsite flows unless the grades
are changed or barrier are created such es farces, garden terracing, sidewalks, and/or any landscaping which may change
the established Flow patterns by div in or slowing runoff flow. Backfill adjacent to the residence may settle over time
and allow ponding to occur tion walls. The backfill adjacent to the residence must be monitored and
maintained to ensure the coil from the foundation. The grades measured were compared only to the
requirements shokin on 1.4 '•' a plan. Other minimum grading requirements which may be specified
in the soils report or b _ r 6cytruet11tbc am beyond the scope of this repom
iteviewed bv:,
.n (j5 '.aCSj,[eSf.SLitl Q•Il . CJIOrJd0 soi,$ .C,'n1 bb5-U1 i9 • Faa:.Q7Qf oe;-: oW
off,ear:n • 3mwler • "'m4m,ml • UnrIAMI
FROM : Scott, Cox & Assoc. FAX NO. : 970 663 1660 Oct. 29 2001 10:24AM P2
@LEVATIONS WZVGYED ` ` •
io/!S/01 bo �09_
e
T5M-1 1010 (B.O.W.)
e A
a • ,
• e 101.1
101A (B.O.W.)
e0
e •
0 ,
� 102b
•
101.J e
,
TOM -In TOMFOR RY BENCH MARC 9
SOIL- BACK OP WICK
L MT• LCNMT OPENM fTOP OP Uft DELL)
SILL. BOTTOM OF WINDM GLASS
UL =vm 8O1TOm Cr WAL.KOL:T DOOR
NOTETME UVAT_
ON TW`E WRVEY PEWOWSO ON 10/23W
102.1
(LUST)
100.E
99.4
ki
0-.
98.2
98.5 yA5.5UILT GR O NGi ELEVATIONS
'q i
MARK GIPRIANI
I0/2b/ml
3COTT, cox a 4sSocLaTt:s, trJG
Coroultlrg Ewgl,oss
LOT 19, HEARtNFII�
FORT GOLLINS. GOLORAC
scx
uio o-�w acne. ones o • L&WRIM. CWwwao WOW
(slop 66% - O13*
DRAW
DAP
Oe,r a, •Yk pn� w . AeYWw . lopwM • twiN,w
FAX NO. 970 663 1660 Oct. 29 2001 10:24RM P3
M
I SP
'4A'
1
FRi]M Scott. Cox & Assoc.
FG 143. 2 7
�. ToW /03• gq !
1
�'
)l
99.84
FG tO2. 87
TOW 103_ 54 I
J
Zp
(S�Z-off-mac
•! — _ s`
1 1
I FG 102.47 1 102
i OW 103.14 ► � OW 10`tog -3
RE