HomeMy WebLinkAboutLot Certifications - 07/23/2001 (3)"SCOTT, COX & ASSOCIATES, INC. consulting engineers
OVERLOT GRADING OBSERVATION SCA labd 1CQ4-31- a5-0(go
CLIENT: Law! L
-
DATE: Z-ZZ— )J
' 1 C(p(Ot. 444mP..'iDn()
LEGAL : Lcri- M, 14,_% T rsnTorj F-ht1S � Cc)`joLT fNSP. BY:
GRADMG PLAN:
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:
FA
9
Q.
J
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
• ... . _.. n• tv
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 offsite 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 d' ;1n or slowing runoff flow. Backtill adjacent to the residence may settle over time
Uttl tfFl,
and allow ponding to occu��@'iti o(lftdption walls. The backfill adjacent to the residence must be monitored and
maintained to ensure th�c�x n •� 1 from the foundation. The grades measured were compared only to the
requirements shown o�• r to d plan. Other minimum grading requirements which may be specified
in the soils report or^�ti onstruction8u'�t�ei$s are beyond the scope of this report.
Reviewed bv: 3 al, ° - Date -23 -O I
>1f0C n12 A'" 3- O 063•;660
iy get. Suite D • lovet nth. Colorado 90i33 • �I ub.;-m 3H • Fax::9- t
.`^• o
°° \�V\
74.. _tSIJCM1iDe iS114W1tT0.}��� OIrICCS i0 • 3ouldrr • _olvilmtl lu�eland
No Text
TOF= 33. C
CA
i