HomeMy WebLinkAboutApplicationTRANSMITTALS TO AGENCIES FOR COMMENTS ON
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WITH THE CITY OF MERIDIAN
Mayor Tammy de Weerd
City Council Members:
Keith Bird
Joe Borton
Charles Rountree
David Zaremba
To ensure that your comments and recommendations will be considered by
the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission please submit your
comments and recommendations to Meridian City Hall
Attn: Jaycee Holman, City Clerk, by: January 8, 2015
Transmittal Date: December 16, 2014
Hearing Date: January 15, 2015
File No.: PP 14-020
Request: Public Hearing: Preliminary Plat approval consisting of 14 single family
residential lots & three common lots on approximately 4.71 acres in the R-4
zoning district for Accommodations Subdivision
By: Providence Management, LLC
Location of Property or Project: south side of E. Falcon Drive and east of
S. Eagle Road
_Joe Marshall (No FP)
_Scott Freeman (No FP)
—Steven Yearsley (No FP)
_ Patrick Oliver (No FP)
—Rhonda McCarvel (No FP)
Tammy de Weerd, Mayor
_ City Council
_Sanitary Services (No VAR, VAC, FP)
—Building Department/ Rick Jackson
_ Fire Department
Police Department
_ City Attorney
_City Public Works
_City Planner
—Parks Department
Economic Dev.
Your Concise Remarks:
_ Meridian School District (No FP)
_ Meridian Post Office (FP/PP/SHP only)
_Ada County Highway District
_Ada County Development Services
_Central District Health
_COMPASS (Comp Plan only)
—Nampa Meridian Irrig. District
_Settlers Irrig. District
_ Idaho Power Co. (FP,PP,CUP/SHP only)
_ Qwest (FP/PP/SHP only)
—Intermountain Gas (FP/PP/SHP only)
—Idaho Transportation Dept. (No FP)
_Ada County Ass. Land Records
Downtown Projects:
—Meridian Development Corp.
_ Historical Preservation Comm.
South of RR / SW Meridian:
NW Pipeline
—New York Irrigation District
Boise-Kuna Irrigation District
Boise Project Board of Control/Tim Page
City Clerk's Office • 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Meridian, ID 83642
Phone 208-888-4433 • Fax 208-888-4218 • wvvw.meridiancity.org
�/rE IDIZ IAN, -
Planning Division
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
STAFF USE ONLY:
Project name : J�N unmr) jvs' kl l^rtn,^- _�.� i�, .1 Ui S,t,�
File number(s): *7-[:;' - I - b 3U
Assigned Planner; i it ha i r; Related files; - owo py--O- o
Type of Review Requested (check all that apply)
❑ Accessory Use
❑ Planned Unit Development
❑ Administrative Design Review
❑+ Preliminary Plat
❑ Alternative Compliance
❑ Private Street
❑ Annexation and Zoning
❑ Property Boundary Adjustment
❑ Certificate of Zoning Compliance
❑ Rezone
❑ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
❑ Short Plat
❑ Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment
❑ Time Extension:
❑ Conditional Use Permit
Director/ Commission/Council (circle one)
❑ Conditional Use Modification
❑ UDC Text Amendment.
Director/Commission (circle one)
❑ Vacation:
❑ Development Agreement Modification
Director/ Council (circle one)
❑ Final Plat
❑ Variance
❑ Final Plat Modification
❑ Other
Information
Applicant name: Providence Management, LLC/Zach Evans
Applicant address: 7761 W Riverside Dr, #100 Email:
City: Boise State: ID
Applicant's interest in property: 0 Own ❑ Rent ❑ Optioned ❑ Other
Owner name: Dave Evans Construction, LLC
Owner address: 7761 W Riverside Dr, #100
City: Boise
Email:
State: I D
Phone: 208-853-1205
Zip: 83714
Phone: 208-853-1205
Zip: 83714
Agent/Contact name (e.g., architect, engineer, developer,. representative): Scott Wonders
Firm name: JUB Engineers, Inc. Phone: 376-7330
Owner address: 250 S Beechwood Ave, Suite 201 Email: swondersOjub.com
City; Boise State: ID Zip; 83709
Primary contact is: ❑ Applicant ❑ Owner ❑+ Agent/Contact
Information
Location/street address: 3467 E Falcon Dr, Meridian Township, range, section: T3N, R1 E, Section 28
Assessor's parcel number(s): 83193250025 Total acreage: 4.71 Zoning district: R-4
Community Development • Plamtirg Division • 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancity org/plamring
-I- (Rev. 06112/2014)
Project/subdivision name: Accomodations Subdivision
General description of proposed project/request: Detached single family subdivision development with 16
proposed lots; 14 buildable and 2 common lots.
Proposed zoning district(s): R-4
Acres of each zone proposed: 4.71
Type of use proposed (check all that apply):
17 Residential ❑ Office ❑ Commercial ❑ Employment ❑ Industrial ❑ Other
Who will own & maintain the pressurized irrigation system in this development? HOA
Which irrigation district does this property lie within? New York Irrigation District
Primary irrigation source: McDonald Lateral Secondary: City of Meridian
Square footage of landscaped areas to be irrigated (if primary or secondary point orconnection is city water): •21 acres
Residential Project Summary (if applicable)
Number of residential units: 14 Number of building lots: 14
Number of common lots Number of other lots: B
Proposed number of dwelling units (for multi -family developments only):
1 bedroom: 2-3 bedrooms: 4 or more bedrooms:
Minimum square footage of structure (excl. garage):
Minimum property size (s.f): 8,658 s.f.
Gross density (Per UDC I MA -1): A-1): 2_97
Acreage of qualified open space: .17 ac
Maximum building height:
Average property size (s.f.): 11,718 s.f.
Net density (Per UDC I I -1A-1):
Percentage of qualified open space:
Type and calculations of qualified open space provided in acres (Per UDC 11 -3G -3B): N/A -
Amenities provided with this development (if applicable):
Less than 5 acres
Type of dwelling(s) proposed: O Single-family Detached ❑ Single-family Attached ❑ Townhouse
❑ Duplex ❑ Multi -family ❑ Vertically Integrated ❑ Other
Non-residential Project Summary (if applicable)
Number of building lots: _
Gross floor area proposed:
Hours of operation (days and hours):
Common lots: Other lots:
Existing (if applicable):
Building height:
Total number of parking spaces provided: Number of compact spaces provided:
Authorization
Print applicant name: Scott
Applicant signature:
Date: 11/23/14
Community Development ■ Planning Division . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Pax: 208-888-6854 www.meridiancitv:orz/nlannine
-2- (Ren. 0611212014)
(rJ-u�
J•U•B ENGINEERS, INC.
December 8, 2014
Bill Parsons, AICP
Associate City Planner
City of Meridian
33 E. Broadway Avenue
Meridian, ID 83642
Dear Bill
J -U -B COMPANIES UNINGGGN ® MAPPING
GROUP INC.
RE: PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL-ACCOMODATIONS SUBDIVISION
Please find attached our submittal package for the Accomodations Subdivision located at 3467
East Falcon Lane in Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County,
Meridian, Idaho, comprising of Tax Parcel No. R3193250025 and is approximately 4.7 acres in
size.
The subdivision will consist of 14 buildable lots and 3 common lots with an overall gross
density of 2.97 DUA. The subdivisions and open space will be combined with the Astoria
Sudbivision HOA and pressurized irrigation system. We held our neighborhood meeting on
November 12. The proposed project is intended to be in conformance with the City of
Meridian R-4 code requirements.
Please call me should you have any questions or require additional information at 376-7330 or
at swonders@jub.com.
Sincerely,
J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc.
W. Scott Wonders, PE
u 250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201, Boise, ID 83709-0944 p 208-376-7330 ,f 208-323-9336 w www.jub.com
�J•U•�
J-U-BCOMPANIES
THE
JLANGONGROUP
®�'
NACPIING
J•u•B ENGINEERS, INC.
Accommodations Subdivision
Boundary Description
Project Number 10-14-105 November 17, 2014
Lot 6 of the Amended Plat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, of Golden Eagle Estates (Book 37 of Plats at Pages
3127 and 3128, records of Ada County, Idaho) in the north half of the northwest quarter of Section 28,
Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described
as follows:
Commencing atthe northwest corner of Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian;
Thence S00°27'50"W, 1321.08 feet along the west line of the north half of the northwest quarter of
Section 28 to the southwest corner of the north half of the northwest quarter of Section 28;
Thence S89°30'18"E, 455.55 feet along the south line of the north half of the northwest quarter of
Section 28 to the southwest corner of Lot 6 of the Amended Plat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6; and 7, of Golden Eagle
Estates, the POINT OF BEGINNING:
Thence N00°21'32"E, 467.07 feet along the boundary between Lots 5 and 6 of the Amended Plat
of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, of Golden Eagle Estates to the south right-of-way line of East Falcon
Drive;
Thence N73°20'19"E, 43.13 feet along the south right-of-way line of East Falcon Drive;
Thence 32.02 feet on a curve to the right, having a radius of 50.00 feet, a central angle of
36°41'12", a chord bearing of S88°19'05"E, and a chord length of 31.47 feet, along the south
right-of-way line of East Falcon Drive;
Thence S69°58'30"E, 350.52 feet along the south right-of-way line of East Falcon Drive;
Thence 44.18 feet on a curve to the right, having a radius of 45.00 feet, a central angle of
56°15'04", a chord bearing of S41°50'58"E, and a chord length of 42.43 feet, along the south
right-of-way line of East Falcon Drive;
Thence 92.77 feet on a reverse curve to the left, having a radius of 45.00 feet, a central angle of
118°06'51", a chord bearing of S72°46'52"E, and a chord length of 77.19 feet, along the south
right-of-way line of East Falcon Drive to the northeast corner of Lot 6 of the Amended Plat of
Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, of Golden Eagle Estates;
Thence S01°08'16"W, 308.41 feet along the boundary between Lots 6
and 7 of the Amended Plat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, of Golden Eagle �c�G �F G t S ifRFQ
Estates to the south line of the north half of the northwest quarter of
Section 28; 11334
sf
Page 1 of 2 CygEL
250 S. Beechwood Avenue. Suite 201. Boise. ID 83709 n 208-376-7330 f 208-323-9336 iv www.iub.com
J•U.B ENGINEERS, INC.
Accommodations Subdivision continued...
THE
CAT4WAY
1 -U -B COMPANIES , LANCCON NAVPINC
CRO INC.
Thence N89°30'18"W, 500.97 feet along the south line of the north half of the northwest
quarter to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
The above-described parcel contains 4.71 acres, more or less.
ST
11334
0V OP
Page 2 of 2 Cygf� S By
a 250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201, Boise, ID 83709 p 208-376-7330 f 208-323-9336 w www.jub.com
ADA COUNTY RECORDER Christopher D. Rich 2014-086603
� BOISE IDAHO Pgs=2 CHE FOWLER 1012312014 03:21 PM
{ TITLEONE BOISE $13.00
TitleOne
a title &escrow co.
Order Number:14238623 A E/S�
ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED
WARRANTY DEED STAMPED FIRST PAGE NOW
INCORPORATED AS PART OF
For Value Received, THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT.
Helen A. Lawler, a married woman as her sole & separate property, the Grantor, does hereby grant,
bargain sell and convey unto, Dave Evans Construction LLC, an Idaho limited liability company dba
Zach Evans Construction, whose current address is 7761 W. Riverside Dr., Ste 180, Garden City, ID
83714, the Grantee, the following described premises, in Ada County, Idaho, To Wit:
Lot 6 of Amended Plat of Lots 3, 4, 5,6 and 7 of Golden Eagle Estates, according to the official plat
thereof, filed in Book 37 of Plats at Page 3127, and as Amended by Engineers Affidavit recorded
October 4,1984 as Instrument No. 8449428, records of Ada County, Idaho
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee, its heirs and
assigns forever. And the said Grantor does hereby covenant to and with the said Grantee, that Grantor is
the owner in fee simple of said premises; that they are free from all encumbrances EXCEPT those to which
this conveyance is expressly made subject and those made, suffered or done by the Grantee; and subject to
all existing patent reservations, easements, right(s) of way, protective covenants, zoning ordinances, and
applicable building codes, laws and regulations, general taxes and assessments, including irrigation and
utility assessments (if any) for the current year, which are not due and payable, and that Grantor will warrant
and defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever, Whenever the context so requires, the singular
number includes the plural.
Dated: iGlr70,64-
Warranty Deed
Page I oft
TitleOne
a title & escrow co.
Order Number:14238623 J E/
WARRANTY DEED
For Value Received,
Helen A. Lawler, a married woman as her sole & separate property, the Grantor, does hereby grant,
bargain sell and convey unto, Dave Evans Construction LLC, an Idaho limited liability company dba
Zach Evans Construction , whose current address is 7761 W. Riverside Dr„ Ste 100, Garden City, ID
83714, the Grantee, the following described premises, in Ada County, Idaho, To Wit:
Lot 6 of Amended Plat of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Golden Eagle Estates, according to the official plat
thereof, filed in Book 37 of Plats at Page 3127, and as Amended by Engineers Affidavit recorded
October 4,1984 as Instrument No. 8449428, records of Ada County, Idaho
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said Grantee, its heirs and
assigns forever. And the said Grantor does hereby covenant to and with the said Grantee, that Grantor is
the owner In fee simple of said premises; that they are free from all encumbrances EXCEPT those to which
this conveyance is expressly made subject and those made, suffered or done by the Grantee; and subject to
all existing patent reservations, easements, right(s) of way, protective covenants, zoning ordinances, and
applicable building codes, laws and regulations, general taxes and assessments, including irrigation and
utility assessments (if any) for the current year, which are not due and payable, and that Grantor will warrant
and defend the same from all lawful claims whatsoever. Whenever the context so requires, the singular
number includes the plural.
Dated: 1AA?91114-
Warranty Deed
Page I of 2
Helen A. Lawler
Lindell Timot 1y, spouse of Granto
State of Idaho, County of _tA, ss
OaAobv 2414
On this —22 -="day of -in the year ofdbefore me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State,
personally appeared Helen A. Lawler and Lindell Timothy, known or identified to me to be the persons)
whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they
executed the a
DARtz
Notary Public �� .••""'•a^0
r5
My Commission Expires: %
RESIDING: BOISE, 10
DoT AR r
(seal) COMMISSION EXPIRES: 11-28.19
• k
• A
•� pUAI- p .
Warranty Deed
Page 2 of 2
AFFIDAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST
STATE OF IDAHO
COUNTY OF ADA
I, (�lM, r��t,Vlrc� FiVQ.GL� �?�( /,,) /�✓>°l�� �•
%j6 y5 ee) _',,,'X�ress)
(city) (state)
being first duly sworn upon, oath, depose and say:
That I am the record owner of the property described on the attached, and I grant my
permission to: !�'&G )j /
Seo t�6(a�2�s u-8 z�D S.
a) o44 Aw-
/h�S Bbfse,.� iS370�
(name) (address)
to submit the accompanying application(s) pertaining to that property.
2. I agree to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Meridian and its employees harmless
from any claim or liability resulting from any dispute as to the statements contained
herein or as to the ownership of the property which is the subject of the application.
3. I hereby grant permission to City of Meridian staff to enter the subject property for the
purpose of site inspections related to processing said application(s).
Dated this _day of , 20iq
q
C-2 � &
(Signature)
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me the day and year first above written.
13OTAR,
(Notary Public fi rldaho
�•�
Residing at:
nom' AUBLIC,�'• :
h•••
My Commission Expires:
y
OF IDPH..•
ty Development. Planning Division • 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste, 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208.888-6854 www.meridianciiy.orq/olammng
Zl�
J=_I I LI�r
SU
. SUTHERLAND FARM
SUBDI-UIS{O1J �l��T i �
—1 -T
PROJECT
LOCATION
GOLDf'N EAGLE
c
--4 INBj BRIDE
SPE101VISION I
DER XANA '
FF- -1= '
0 1250
IN
Ni RNO EIO KNI°IX IICA R HEREIN.
ACCOMMODATIONS SUBDIVISION
SHEET
R .E NR Ifl
�"�M M NDI I USED, Mi °i
AIB PPOI 0.11-145
D�WNB.
(J -J
MERIDIAN, IDAHO
fpiP Efl PflWECi1MMWRMEMESSWRTEI
OIN
VA ° U EN N I
�I � •
;7
wE NEoev: we
VICINITY MAP
1
1 -N -B ENGINEERS, INC.
CITY OF MER1rDIAN
PRE-APPIIICATION MEETING NOTES
,r
Location:
Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Designation:
Design Guidelines Development Context:
Proposed Use: €?.�
Existing Use- 'le ` gx,, : ,
Surrounding Uses: V T
Street Buffer(s) and/or Land Use Buffer(s):
Open Space/Amenities/Pathways: UA;& 10 '7j
Access/StubSireets/Street System: Acc,sc cif
Sewer & Water Service:
d Zoning:
Zoning:
(114o)
Date: /Z'7' -1q
P•operty:
Other AgencieslDepartments to Contact:
❑ Ada County Highway District ❑ Nampa Meridian Irrigation District ❑ Public Works Department
❑ Idaho Transportation Department ❑ Settees Irrigation District ❑ Building Department
❑ Sanitary Services Company ❑ Police Department ❑ Parks Department
❑ Central District Health Department ❑ Fire Department ❑ Other'
Application(s) Required:
❑ Administrative Design Review ❑ Conditional Use Permit Modification/Transfer ❑ Rezone
❑ Alternative Compliance ❑ Development Agreement Modification ❑ Short Plat
❑ Annexation ❑ Final Plat ❑ Time Extension— Council
❑ City Council Review ❑ Final Plat Modification ❑ UDC Text Amendment
El Comprehensive Plan Amendment — Map ❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Vacation
HComprehensive Plan Amendment — Text ElPreliminary Plat 2 ElVariance
Conditional Use Permit ❑ Private Street ❑ Other
Notes: 1) Applicants are required to hold a neighborhood meeting in accord with UDC 11 -5A -5C prior to submittal of an application
requiring a public hearing (except fora vacation or short plat); and 2) All applicants for permits requiring a public hearing shall post the
site with a public hearing notice in accord with UDC 11-5A-0.3 (except for UDC text amendments, Comp Plan text amendments, and
vacations). The information provided during this meeting is based on cured UDC requirements and the Comprehensive Plan. Any
subsequent changes to the UDC and/or Comp Plan may affect your submittal and/or application. This pre -application meeting shall be
valid for four (4) months.
44
COMMITMENT OF PROPERTY POSTING
Per Unified Development Code (UDC) 11 -5A -5D, the applicant for all applications requiring a
public hearing (except for a UDC text amendment, a Comprehensive Plan text amendment
and/or vacations) shall post the subject property not less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing.
The applicant shall post a copy of the public hearing notice of the application(s) on the property
under consideration.
The applicant shall submit proof of property posting in the form of a notarized statement and a
photograph of the posting to the City no later than seven (7) days prior to the public hearing
attesting to where and when the sign(s) were posted. Unless such Certificate is received by the
required date, the hearing will be continued.
The sign(s) shall be removed no later than three (3) days after the end of the public hearing for
which the sign(s) had been posted.
I am aware of the above requirements and will comply with the posting requirements as stated in
UDC 11-5A-5.
(Zg�
Applicant/agent signature Date
Community Development • Planning Division . 33 E. Broadway Avenue, Ste. 102 Meridian, Idaho 83642
Phone: 208-884-5533 Fax: 208-888-6854 www.inciidiancity.org/planning
JUB
J•U•B ENGINEERS, INC.
October 23, 2014
THE
I -U -B COMPANIES9 ( UN
a ac.w o
RE: NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING — November 12, 2014, 6:00 PM at 3467 East Falcon Drive
Dear Property Owner:
You are invited to attend a Neighborhood Meeting for a proposed single-family subdivision on
Wednesday November 12th at 6:00 PM, at the existing residence on the project site. This
residence is shown on the attached map and is located at 3467 East Falcon Drive.
The project proposes a subdivision of approximately 4.7 acres into single family lots within the
existing R-4, medium low density residential district. The subdivision will take access from
Falcon Drive and will be served via public sewer and water systems adjacent to the project.
The meeting will start at 6:00 PM where the developer and engineer will be available to discuss
the project and answer any questions.
Should you have any questions prior to the meeting or cannot attend, please do not hesitate to
contact me at swonders@lub.com or at the phone number listed below.
Sincerely,
J -U -B ENGINEERS, Inc.
W. Scott Wonders, PE
Land Development Group Lead
n 250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Suite 201, Boise, In 83709-0944 p 208-376-7330 f 208-323-9336 }v www.jub.com
Community Development
Parcel Verification
Date: 12/10/14
Meridian City Hall, Suite 102
33 E. Broadway Avenue
Meridian, Idaho 83642
208.887.2211
The parcel information below has been researched and verified as correct by the City of Meridian
Community Development Department.
Project Name: Accommodations Subdivision
Parcel Number: R3193250025
Acres: 4.67
T/R/S: 3N 1E 28
Property Owner: Dave Evans Construction, LLC
7761 W. Riverside Dr. #100
Boise, ID 83714
Address Verification Rev: 04/23/12
geeq py:rei
Im gtlg '666a0e6e0ee1c6'e0oz0_•1w¢¢d1¢8 SNOILNNONtl JNI1Sl%3
1"d AHVNIM-3tldq t�y� OHMMIONWt6z eonsrNOISIAIOSAS SN011Va0WW000V IJN r6NItl
til I
I
-(l ,
Z
�
I
F �
c
Jam\
dip€
5
i�
moi- fi
\ w t
I�
W Q
W � rmi O
n1_
rc$$$
8i
\; ;
ae
°m
z-0Ooia�<N
N
W
Z
�
I
F �
Hit
s
\ w t
I�
W Q
W � rmi O
n1_
V) O V Z
Cl)
3 o N o
Cf)
\; ;
g
z-0Ooia�<N
S§34
p
�a
1 �a
1 3
Qo3 p 75!11 4,i3.°t
4(11,1
W
U -he
J i jet III 6a�
,
H 9 R i �zz� wum `6
HiS
ll
�
I
F �
Hit
s
p
�a
1 �a
1 3
Qo3 p 75!11 4,i3.°t
4(11,1
W
U -he
J i jet III 6a�
,
H 9 R i �zz� wum `6
HiS
ll
�
I
i�
;fad
Hit
s
I�
3
Nil
I q dg£g.
t - 1 � ♦ m I / ;�o
FeL I A
I � %�
1
db
1 e
1
- \�'_\_ - —1 RNIl03 d3T'15 • - II �h 1 §
Y Ga
1 iI
I Ij ISI
1 a ,
1
1 I
I,A i H8
9[s6fte eoA'mf
aOO01 1H
46
09-l
Wvp
'
1.NOISIAIGOnS
53111 9
1VdAtltlNlNll3Ud
WOOOtl�NI'S3NIJ
SNOIlVaOWtlR
N
O
dMCMINVIIH
�I1-I11 -
I A
I
1
1
of II
1
1 o
1
1
g r.
G �I
imil a;Ae1 s
-
� — v
\9�
F
tl $ H£
d`3:6
N�gA
Y
I
3
8
t
E"
ee
RRI
I
�
x
II
'en
2
g
I q dg£g.
t - 1 � ♦ m I / ;�o
FeL I A
I � %�
1
db
1 e
1
- \�'_\_ - —1 RNIl03 d3T'15 • - II �h 1 §
Y Ga
1 iI
I Ij ISI
1 a ,
1
1 I
I,A i H8
®■L1i
�99
�I1-I11 -
I A
I
1
1
of II
1
1 o
1
1
g r.
G �I
imil a;Ae1 s
-
� — v
\9�
®■L1i
F
tl $ H£
d`3:6
®■L1i
___
;.)3
_a__
%.
_m _ >
,4)n!
}
:
,
\{(
)
-1h
�
� /\2
y\\\
»}
.\!!
—
/
\
Kristi Watkins
From:
Michael Byrns
Sent:
Monday, November 24, 2014 1:55 PM
To:
Kristi Watkins
Subject:
FW: Accommodations Subdivision Name Reservation
From: Jerry Hastings [mailto:jhastings@adaweb.net]
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 3:17 PM
To: Michael Byrns; Scott Wonders
Subject: Accommodations Subdivision Name Reservation
October 20, 2014
Michael Byrnes
J -U -B Engineers, Inc.
RE: Subdivision Name Reservation: "Accommodations Subdivision"
Dear Michael,
At your request, I will reserve the name "Accommodations Subdivision" for your project. I can honor this
reservation only as long as your project is in the approval process. Final approval can only take place when the
final plat is recorded.
This reservation is available for the next ten (10) years unless the project is terminated by the client or the
jurisdiction or the conditions of approval have not been met. In which case the name can be re -used by
someone else.
Sincerely,
Jerry L. Hastings, PLS 5359
County Surveyor
Ex Officio Recorder
I
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION FOR A
16± ACRE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF
VICTORY ROAD AND EAGLE ROAD,
MERIDIAN IDAHO
February 22, 2013
GTI -Work Order No. 1655-ID3
Prepared For:
JUB ENGINEERS
250 Beechwood Drive
Boise, Idaho 83709
GEOTEK, INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SCOPE OF SERVICES..............................................................................................
SITEDESCRIPTION.................................................................................................
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT .................... :... ..
FIELD STUDIES .............................................
REGIONAL GEOLOGY .................................
EARTH MATERIALS .....................................
Artificial Fill ...............................................
Alluvium.....................................................
SURFACE & GROUND WATER ..................
TECTONIC FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY ................
Secondary Seismic Constraints.......................................................
Summary:.........
RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING .........................................
CONCLUSIONS....................................................................
...............I
.................2
.................2
....................2
e
REAl
.............................5
.........5
RECOMMENDATIONS -EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION..........................................................5
General...................................................... ................................................... -- ...... ........................
5
Demolition......................................................................................................................................
5
Removals/Processing - General.....................................................................................................6
TransitionalPads............................................................................................................................6
ExcavationDifficulty.....................................................................................................................7
FillPlacement.................................................................................................................................7
ImportMaterial..............................................................................................................................7
Observationand Testing.................................................................................................................7
GroundWater.................................................................................................................................8
EarthworkSettlements...................................................................................................................8
SlopeStability................................................................................................................................8
EarthworkBalance.........................................................................................................................9
RECOMMENDATIONS — FOUNDATIONS.....................................................................................9
General...........................................................................................................................................
9
Conventional Foundation Recommendations................................................................................9
FoundationSettlement..................................................................................................................10
PAVEMENT SECTIONS..................................................................................................................10
Pavement Construction and Maintenance....................................................................................11
GEQTEK, INC.
Landscape Maintenance and Planting..........................................................................................12
SoilCorrosion..............................................................................................................................12
Mining of Construction Materials........................................:::.....................:...............................12
TrenchExcavation........................................................................................................................12
UtilityTrench Backfill.................................................................................................................13
Drainage.......................................................................................................................................13
I W wA►ldJ�/
Enclosures:
Figure #1, Site Location Map
Figure #2, Geotechnical Map
Figure #3, Minimum Overexcavation/Fill Blanket
Appendix A, References
Appendix B, Test Pit Logs
Appendix C, Field Tests and Monitoring Results
Appendix D, Laboratory Test Results
GEOTEK, INC.
GeoTek, Inc.
320 East Corporate Drive Suite 300 Meridian, ID 83642-35 1 1
(208)888-701V C: (208) 888-7924 I www.geotekusa.com
February 22, 2013
W.O. 1655-ID3
JUB Engineers
250 Beechwood Drive
Boise, Idaho 83709
Attention: Scott Wonders
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation for "Karmelle Subdivision" — a 16± Acre Residential
Development Located on the Southside of Victory Road, East of Eagle Road, Meridian,
Idaho.
In accordance with your request, GeoTek, Inc. (GTI) has completed a geotechnical evaluation of the
subject property for the construction of a one- to two-story residential development with associated
improvements. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the earth materials underlying the site and to
provide recommendations for project design and construction based on our findings. This report outlines
the geologic and geotechnical conditions of the site based on current data, and provides earthwork and
construction recommendations with respect to those conditions.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The scope of our services has included the following:
Review of soils and geologic reports and maps for the site (Appendix A).
2. Site reconnaissance and geotechnical mapping.
3. Review of aerial photographs.
4. Excavating and logging of five test pits (Appendix B).
5. Obtaining samples of representative earth materials, as the excavations were advanced.
6. Performing laboratory and chemical testing on representative soil samples (Appendix D).
Assessment of potential geologic constraints.
Engineering and geologic analysis regarding; foundation settlement, site preparation and
foundation design/construction.
9. Preparation of this report.
JUB ENGINEERS February 22, 2013
W.O. 1655-ID3 PAGE 2
The site is a roughly rectangular shaped 16+ parcel and is generally bound by other residential property
to the south east and west, and Victory Road right of way to the North. The site's approximate location
is indicated on the enclosed Site Location Map (Figure #i). Currently, the majority of the property
consists of undeveloped land. Several residences with outbuildings are located within the site. From
topographic maps, the site's elevation is approximately 2,680± to 2,700± feet above mean sea level.
Historically, topography generally directs surface water to the west-northwest. Some spread fills were
observed near the existing residences as well as along the interior dirtroads and irrigation ditches. This
fill is generally associated with the construction of the unimproved roads and irrigation ditches that
exist onsite.
It is our understanding that site development would consist of performing typical cut and fill earthwork
to attain the desired graded configuration(s) for the construction of a residential development with
associated improvements.
FIELD STUDIES
Subsurface conditions at the site were explored by using a rubber -tired backhoe. Five test pits were
advanced onsite and a log of each excavation is included with this report in Appendix B. Two
percolation tests were also performed and three monitoring wells were installed at the subject
site(Appendix Q. Field studies were completed during February of 2013 by one of our field personnel
who conducted field mapping, logged the excavations, and obtained samples of representative material
for laboratory testing. The approximate locations of the test pits are indicated on the enclosed
Geotechnical Map (Figure #2).
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The subject site is situated within the Boise River Valley, which comprises the northwestern portion of
the Snake River Plain physiographic province. The western portion of the Snake River Plain is aligned
in a northwest -southeast direction and generally divides the Owyhee mountains to the south from the
Central Idaho mountains toward the north (Wood and Clemens, 2004). The headwaters of the Boise
River are located in the Central Idaho mountains east of Boise, Idaho. The river leaves the central
mountains and enters the Snake River Plain near Barber and drains toward the west into the Snake
River near Parma. The Owyhee mountains and the Central Idaho Mountains are composed
predominantly of volcanic and igneous rocks. The western portion of the Snake River Plain is a
northwest trending complex graben formed by extension and regional uplift along the northern
boundary of the basin and range province (Wood and Clemens, 2004). The graben generally forms a
basin which has been partially filled with younger sedimentary and volcanic rocks (Malde, 1991).
GEOTEK, INC.
JUB ENGINEERS February 22, 2013
W.O. 1655-ID3 PAGE 3
The Boise River Valley is bounded on the northeast by the Boise Front, which is a northwest tending
topographic high extending generally from Boise to Emmett, Idaho. The Boise Front consists of
Cretaceous aged granitic and metamorphic rocks cut by Tertiary aged rhyolite and overlain with
Miocene aged lake sediments (Wood and Clemens, 2004). These units have been cut by northwest
trending faults which down drop these units toward the southwest. The faults also provide conduits for
Quaternary aged basalt intrusions and flows (Malde, 1991).
The depositional environment for the valley floor is dominantly lake laid deposits of sand, silt and clay.
These materials were deposited during two periods of lake activity, one during the Miocene and the
other during the Pleistocene. This valley infilling process has been subsequently truncated by down
faulting within the valley ranging in height from a few feet to over 50 feet. Younger alluvium has been,
and continues to be, transported dominantly by water and deposited on the basins gently sloping valley
floor and within low-level flood plains. Portions of the alluvial deposits are being down cut by
intermittent streams to the flood plain, and as a result stream terraces are being formed.
EARTH MATERIALS
Artificial Fill
Based on our field studies, some spread fills were observed along the perimeter of the site and near the
existing residences as well as along the interior dirt roads and irrigation ditches. This fill is generally
associated with the construction of the unimproved roads and irrigation ditches that exist onsite. This
spread fill shall be considered artificial fill. Much of the property is undeveloped and the upper 12 to 18
inches of material consists of brown silts with sand, and brown lean clays with a moderate amount of
organics and roots. These items shall be considered artificial fill. Deeper fills may be encountered
onsite. The "Artificial Fills" are loose/soft and contain organics/roots and are not considered suitable
for support of foundations. All artificial fill material should be removed as described in the "Removals"
section of this report.
Alluvium
Alluvial materials encountered below the artificial fill generally consisted sandy silts and clays over
layers of sands containing gravel and cobbles. The moisture content within the alluvial materials was
generally moist near surface and slightly moist to moist near the final test pit depth. The consistency of
these materials ranged from soft near surface and medium at the final test pit depth. We anticipate that
the onsite soils can be excavated with conventional earthwork equipment equivalent to CAT D9R
dozers and CAT 235 excavators. Special excavation equipment and techniques may be necessary
dependant upon if harder materials are encountered during construction.
After artificial fill is removed, the upper 12 inches of the surface alluvium will require, at a minimum,
some removal and/or processing efforts to be considered suitable for the support of the proposed site
improvements. Locally deeper processing/removals may be necessary. Refer to the
"Recommendations Earthwork Construction" section of this report for specific site preparation
recommendations.
GEOTEIC, INC.
JUB ENGINEERS
W.O.1b55-ID3
SURFACE & GROUND WATER
February 22, 2013
PAGE 4
Irrigation ditches exist onsite and adjacent to the site and they transmit water on a periodic basis.
Generally, irrigation ditches and canals will locally influence ground water during the irrigation season
(i.e., May through October). Ground water was not encountered in our excavations during our field
investigation. However, if wet materials are encountered they should be spread out and air-dried or
mixed with drier soils to reduce their moisture content as appropriate for fill placement. Ground water
is not anticipated to adversely affect planned development, provided that earthwork construction
methods comply with recommendations contained in this report or those made subsequent to review of
the improvement plan(s). GTI assumes that the design civil engineer of record will evaluate the site for
potential flooding and set grades such that the improvements are adequately protected. These
observations reflect conditions at the time of this investigation and do not preclude changes in local
ground water conditions in the future from natural causes, damaged structures (lines, pipes etc.), or
heavy irrigation.
TECTONIC FAULTING AND REGIONAL SEISMICITY
The site is situated in an area of active as well as potentially active tectonic faults, however no faults
were observed during our field evaluation. There are a number of faults in the regional area, which are
considered active and would have an affect on the site in the form of ground shaking, should they be the
source of an earthquake. It is reasonable to assume that structures built in this area will be subject to at
least one seismic event during their life, therefore, it is recommended that all structures be designed and
constructed in accordance with the International Building Code (IBC). Based on our experience in the
general vicinity, references in our library, field evaluation of the site, a Site Class Designation of `D'
may be used for seismic design.
Secondary Seismic Constraints
The following list includes other potential seismic related hazards that have been evaluated with respect
to the site, but in our opinion, the potential for these seismically related constraints to affect the site is
considered negligible.
* Liquefaction
* Dynamic Settlements
Surface Fault Rupture
k Ground Lurching or Shallow Ground Rupture
Summary'
It is important to keep in perspective that if a seismic event were to occur on any major fault, intense
ground shaking could be induced to this general area. Potential damage to any settlement sensitive
structures would likely be greatest from the vibrations and impelling force caused by the inertia of the
structures mass than that created from secondary seismic constraints. Considering the subsurface soil
conditions and local seismicity, it is estimated that the site has a low risk associated with the potential
for these phenomenon to occur and adversely affect surface improvements. These potential risks are no
greater at this site than they are for other structures and improvements developed on the alluvial
materials in this vicinity.
GEOTEK, INC.
JUB ENGINEI
W.O.1655-ID3
RESULTS OF LABORATORY TESTING
February 22, 2013
PAGE 5
Laboratory tests were performed on representative samples of the onsite earth materials in order to
evaluate their physical and chemical characteristics. The tests performed and the results obtained are
presented in Appendix D.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on our field exploration, laboratory testing and engineering analyses, it is our opinion that the
subject site is suited for development from ageotechnical engineering viewpoint. The recommendations
presented herein should be incorporated into the final design, grading, and construction phases of
development. The engineering analyses performed concerning site preparation and the
recommendations presented below, have been completed using the information provided to us regarding
site development. In the event that the information concerning proposed development is not correct, the
conclusion and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered valid unless the
changes are reviewed and conclusions of this report are modified or approved in writing by this office.
General
All grading should conform to the International Building Code (IBC), and the requirements of the City
of Meridian and the Ada County Highway District (ACHD) except where specifically superseded in the
text of this report. During earthwork construction all removals, drain systems, slopes, and the general
grading procedures of the contractor should be observed and the fill selectively tested.
If unusual or unexpected conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by this office and
if warranted, modified and/or additional recommendations will be offered. It is recommended that the
earthwork contractor(s) perform their own independent reconnaissance of the site to observe field
conditions first hand. This site has too many individual conditions to cover each separately. Therefore,
if the contractor(s) should have any questions regarding site conditions, site preparation, or the remedial
recommendations provided, they should contact a representative of GTI for any necessary clarifications
prior to submitting earthwork bids.
All applicable requirements of local and national construction and general industry safety orders, the
Occupational Safety and Health Act, and the Construction Safety Act should be met. Debris,
vegetation, and other deleterious material should be removed from areas proposed for structural fill
prior to the start of construction.
Demolition
The following recommendations are provided as guidelines in the event a structure is encountered that
are not intended to remain.
All existing surface or subsurface structures (not intended to remain), within the area to be
developed, should be razed and moved off site.
2. If a septic tank (to be abandoned or below a proposed improvement) is located within the
project site, it is recommended that it be pumped out and with few exceptions likely removed.
GEOTEK, INC.
JUB ENGINEERS
W.O.1655-ID3
February 22, 2013
PAGE 6
Any leach lines, seepage pits, or other pipes associated with this structure should also be
removed or properly abandoned.
3. If any wells are encountered, an attempt should be made to identify the owner and purpose of
the well. Well abandonment should adhere to the recommendations provided by the Idaho
Department of Water Resources, the Public Health Department, or any other government
agencies. If the well is located in the area of a proposed structure, these recommendations
should be reviewed by GTI and if warranted, additional geotechnical recommendations wilt be
offered.
Removals/Processing - General
Presented below are removal/processing recommendations for the various earth materials encountered
on the project. Debris, vegetation, and other deleterious material should be stripped/removed from areas
proposed for structural improvements.
Based on a review of the exploratory logs and our site reconnaissance, after the artificial fill is removed,
a minimum removal/processing depth of 12 inches into alluvial materials should be accomplished
across the site (Figure #3). If the left in place soils can be scarified to encounter a competent layer
below; they may be processed in place; otherwise, they should be removed to competent material.
Locally deeper removals/processing may be necessary based on the field conditions exposed
We recommend that all artificial fill, expansive soils, and deleterious soils be removed from beneath the
foundations and building pads and replaced with a low expansive structural fill. The exposed ground
surface should be moisture conditioned and compacted a minimum depth of 12 inches to provide
uniform foundation support. Also, a minimum of 12 inches of compacted structural fill below the
bottom of footings (Figure #3) should be provided. A minimum relative compaction of 95 percent of the
laboratory maximum modified density (ASTM D 1557) at a moisture content of optimum or above is
necessary to generate any near surface settlements. Locally deeper removals/processing may be
necessary based on the conditions exposed. Removal bottoms should be checked by a representative of
GeoTek, Inc. to see if deeper removals are necessary.
If existing improvements or property line restrictions limit removals, condition specific
recommendations would be provided on a case-by-case basis. During earthwork construction, care
should taken by the contractor so that adverse ground movements or settlements are not generated
affecting existing improvements.
Transitional Pads
Transitional pads are defined in this report as pads which are partially cut and partially fill. To mitigate
some of the differential settlement which will occur on transitional pads, the cut side should be over-
excavated/processed to a minimum depth equal to 2 feet below the bottom of the footings or to the
depth of the fill, which ever is less. On transitional pads with more than 7.5 feet of fill, plans need to be
reviewed by GTI and site-specific recommendations will be provided.
GEOTEK, INC.
JUB ENGINEERS February 22, 2013
W.O.1655-ID3 PAGE 7
Excavation Difficulty
We anticipate that the onsite soils can be excavated with conventional earthwork equipment equivalent
to CAT D9R dozers and CAT 235 excavators. However, special excavation equipment and techniques
may be necessary if harder materials are encountered during construction.
Seasonal conditions could cause wet soil conditions to occur onsite. Depending on the depth of cuts, it
should be expected that special excavation and fill placement measures may be necessary. Wet
materials should be spread out and air-dried or mixed with drier soils to reduce their moisture content to
the appropriate level for fill placement.
Frozen soils, if encountered, should be removed and allowed to thaw prior to any fill placement or
construction. Removal bottoms should be checked by a representative of GTI to see if deeper removals
are necessary.
Fill Placement
Subsequent to completing removals/processing and ground preparation, the excavated onsite and/or
imported soils may be placed in relatively thin lifts (less than 8 inches thick), cleaned of vegetation and
debris, brought to at least optimum moisture content, and compacted to a minimum relative compaction
of 95 percent of the laboratory standard (ASTM D 1557).
Import Material
Potentially, soils will be imported to the site for earthwork construction purposes. A sample of any
intended import material should first be submitted to GTI so that, if necessary, additional laboratory or
chemical testing can be performed to verify that the intended import material is compatible with onsite
soils. In general, import material should be within the following minimum guidelines:
* Free of organic matter and debris.
* Maintain less than 0.2 percent sulfate content.
* Maintain less than 3.0 percent soluble material.
* Maintain less than 0.02 percent soluble chlorides.
Maintain less than 0.2 percent sodium sulfate content.
* Maintain less than 4.0 percent expansion (i.e., low expansive).
* One hundred percent passing the six-inch screen.
* At least seventy-five percent passing a three-inch screen.
Observation and Testine
During earthwork construction all removal/processing and the general grading procedures should be
observed and the fill selectively tested by a representative(s) of GTI. If unusual or unexpected
conditions are exposed in the field, they should be reviewed by GTI and if warranted, modified and/or
additional recommendations will be offered.
GEOTEK, INC.
JUB ENGINEERS February 22, 2013
W.O. 1655-ID3 PAGE 8
Ground Water
Ground water was not encountered during our field evaluation. Based on site conditions in the future, a
transient high ground water condition could develop over a clay or less permeable layer and this
condition could generate down gradient seepage. The possible effect these layers could have on this
and adjacent sites should be considered, and can best be evaluated in the field during grading. If
warranted by exposed field conditions, it may be recommended that a drainage system be established to
collect and convey any subsurface water to an appropriate location for drainage. Typically, potential
areas of seepage are difficult to identify prior to their occurrence; therefore, it is often best to adopt a
"wait and see" approach to determine if any seepage conditions do develop, at which time specific
recommendation to mitigate an identified condition can be provided.
Earthwork Settlements
Ground settlement should be anticipated due to primary consolidation and secondary compression. The
total amount of settlement and time over which it occurs is dependent upon various factors, including
material type, depth of fill, depth of removals, initial and final moisture content, and in-place density of
subsurface materials. Compacted fills, to the heights anticipated, are not generally prone to excessive
settlement. However, some settlement of the left in-place alluvium is expected and the majority of this
settlement is anticipated to occur during grading.
Slope Stability
No significantly high (greater than ten feet) slopes are anticipated to be constructed onsite. All slopes
should be designed at gradients of 2 to 1 (Horizontal to Vertical) or flatter. All slopes should be
constructed in accordance with the minimum requirements of the City of Meridian and the International
Building Code. Cut and fill slopes are anticipated to perform adequately in the future with respect to
gross and surficial stability if the soil materials are maintained in a solid to semi-solid state (as defined
by the soils Atterberg Limits) and are limited to the heights prescribed herein.
The importance of proper compaction to the face of a slope cannot be overemphasized. In order to
achieve proper compaction, one or more of the three following methods should be employed by the
contractor following implementation of typical slope construction guidelines: 1) track walk the slopes
at grade, 2) use a combination of sheeps foot roller and track walking, or 3) overfill the slope 3 to 5 feet
laterally and cut it back to grade.
Random testing will be performed to verify compaction to the face of the slope. If the tests do not meet
the minimum recommendation of 90 percent relative compaction, the contractor will be informed and
additional compactive efforts should be recommended. A final evaluation of cut slopes during grading
will be necessary in order to identify any areas of adverse conditions. The need for remedial
stabilization measures should be based on observations made during grading by a representative of this
office. Based on our observations, and if warranted, specific remedial recommendations will be offered
for stabilization.
GEOTEK, INC.
JUB ENGINEERS February 22, 2013
W.O.1655-ID3 PAGE 9
Earthwork Balance
The volume change of excavated materials upon compaction as engineered fill is anticipated to vary
with material type and location. It is anticipated that the alluvial materials will subside approximately
0.10 to 0.15 feet due to soil consolidation and the static and dynamic loading conditions created by
earthwork equipment. The overall earthwork shrinkage may be approximated by using the following
parameters:
Artificial Fill............................................................................................... 20% to 25% shrinkage
Alluvium....................................................,....,.,.......................................... 15% to 20% shrinkage
It should be noted that the above factors are estimates only, based on preliminary data. Final earthwork
balance factors could vary. In this regard, it is recommended that balance areas be reserved where
grades could be adjusted up or down near the completion of grading in order to accommodate any
yardage imbalance for the project.
RECOMMENDATIONS — FOUNDATIONS
General
Foundation design and construction recommendations are based on preliminary laboratory testing and
engineering analysis performed on near surface earth materials. The proposed foundation systems
should be designed and constructed in accordance with the guidelines contained herein and in the
International Building Code.
Based on our experience in the area; the soils onsite should have a negligible corrosive potential to
concrete and metal, materials selected for construction purposes should be resistant to corrosion. Where
permitted by building code, PVC pipe should be utilized. All concrete should be designed, mixed,
placed, finished, and cured in accordance with the guidelines presented by the Portland Cement
Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI).
Based on our grading recommendations, the soils beneath the foundations are anticipated to have low
expansion potential. Therefore, foundation recommendations for low expansive soil conditions are
provided below. If more expansive soils are encountered, the pad(s) will either need to be regraded and
the more expansive soils removed by the contractor or increased foundation recommendations will need
to be provided.
Conventional Foundation Recommendations
Column loads are anticipated to be 50 kips or less while wall loads are expected to be 3 kips per lineal
foot or less. The conventional recommendations provided are from a geotechnical engineering
perspective (i.e., for expansive conditions) and are not meant to supersede the design by the project's
structural engineer.
Preliminary recommendations for foundation design and construction are presented below. The specific
criteria to be used should be verified on evaluation of the proposed buildings, structural loads, and
expansion and chemical testing performed after grading is complete. The bearing values indicated are
for the total dead plus frequently applied live loads and may be increased by one third for short duration
loading which includes the effects of wind or seismic forces. When combining passive pressure and
friction for lateral resistance, the passive component should be reduced by one third.
A grade beam, reinforced as below and at least 12 inches wide, should be utilized across all large
GEOTEK, INC.
JUB ENGINEERS February 22, 2013
W.O.1655-ID3 PAGE 10
entrances. The base of the grade beam should be at the same elevation as the bottom of the adjacent
footings; Footings should be founded at a minimum depth of 24 inches below lowest adjacent ground
surface as required by local codes to extend below the frost line. All continuous wall footings should be
reinforced with a minimum of four No. 4 reinforcing bars, two placed near the top and two placed near
the bottom of the footings. Reinforcement for spread footings should be designed by the project's
structural engineer. All footings should maintain a minimum horizontal distance of seven feet from the
outside bottom edge of the footing to the face of an adjacent descending slope.
For foundations systems including a crawl space, it is recommended that it be designed so that water is
not allowed to penetrate the crawl space. Proper grading and backfill for the foundations is critical and
should adhere to the "fill placement" and "drainage recommendations of this evaluation as well as
local building codes.
The coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure values recommended are working values. Strip
footings should have a minimum width of one foot and spread footings should have a minimum soil to
concrete area of four square feet. Increases are allowed for the bearing capacity of the footings at arate
of 250 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of width and 250 pounds per square foot for each
additional foot of depth into the recommended bearing material, up to a maximum outlined. If the
bearing value exceeds 3,000 psf, an additional review by GTI is recommended. As mentioned earlier,
the exposed ground surface should be moisture conditioned and compacted a minimum depth of 12
inches below bottom of footings.
Foundation Settlement
Provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and
construction phase of development, total settlement is estimated to be less than one inch and differential
settlement is estimated to be less than 0.75 inches for a 25 -foot span. Two-way angular distortions due
to settlements are not estimated to exceed 1/400. The structures should be loaded uniformly so as to
avoid any localized settlements.
PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Pavement sections presented in the following table are based on an R -value of 10, Ada County
Highway District Development (ACHD) pre -assigned traffic index(s) for residential construction and
estimated traffic index(s) for commercial construction, and the guidelines presented in the latest edition
of the ACHD Development Policy Manual. These pavement sections are presented for planning
purposes only and should be verified based on specific laboratory testing performed subsequent to
rough grading of the site.
GEOTEK, INC.
Soil
Minimum
Allowable
Passive
Maximum
Footing
Footing
Bearing
Coefficient
Earth
Earth
Type
Expansion
Depth
Pressure
of Friction
Pressure
Pressure
Classification
(inches)
(psf)
(psf/ft)
(psf)
Strip/Spread
Low
24
2,000
0.35
250
3,000
The coefficient of friction and passive earth pressure values recommended are working values. Strip
footings should have a minimum width of one foot and spread footings should have a minimum soil to
concrete area of four square feet. Increases are allowed for the bearing capacity of the footings at arate
of 250 pounds per square foot for each additional foot of width and 250 pounds per square foot for each
additional foot of depth into the recommended bearing material, up to a maximum outlined. If the
bearing value exceeds 3,000 psf, an additional review by GTI is recommended. As mentioned earlier,
the exposed ground surface should be moisture conditioned and compacted a minimum depth of 12
inches below bottom of footings.
Foundation Settlement
Provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into final design and
construction phase of development, total settlement is estimated to be less than one inch and differential
settlement is estimated to be less than 0.75 inches for a 25 -foot span. Two-way angular distortions due
to settlements are not estimated to exceed 1/400. The structures should be loaded uniformly so as to
avoid any localized settlements.
PAVEMENT SECTIONS
Pavement sections presented in the following table are based on an R -value of 10, Ada County
Highway District Development (ACHD) pre -assigned traffic index(s) for residential construction and
estimated traffic index(s) for commercial construction, and the guidelines presented in the latest edition
of the ACHD Development Policy Manual. These pavement sections are presented for planning
purposes only and should be verified based on specific laboratory testing performed subsequent to
rough grading of the site.
GEOTEK, INC.
JUB ENGINEERS February 22, 2013
W.O. 1655-ID3 PAGE 11
Pavement Construction and Maintenance
All section changes should be properly transitioned. If adverse conditions are encountered during the
preparation of subgrade materials, special construction methods may need to be employed. All
subgrade materials should be processed to a minimum depth of 12 inches and compacted to a minimum
relative compaction of 90 percent near optimum moisture content.. All aggregate base should be
compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 95 percent at optimum moisture content.
The recommended pavement sections provided are meant as minimums. If thinner or highly variable
pavement sections are constructed, increased maintenance and repair should be expected. If the ADT
(average daily traffic) or ADTT (average daily truck traffic) increases beyond that intended, as reflected
by the traffic index(s) used for design, increased maintenance and repair could be required for the
pavement section. Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times. Water should not be
allowed to pond or seep into the ground. If planters or landscaping are adjacent to paved areas,
measures should be taken to minimize the potential for water to enter the pavement section.
Residential Pavement Sections
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Site Improvements
As is commonly known, expansive soils are problematic with respect to the design, construction and
long term performance of concrete flatwork. Due to the nature of concrete flatwork, it is essentially
impossible to totally mitigate the effects of soil expansion. Typical measures to control soil expansion
for structures include; low expansive soil caps, deepened foundation system, increased structural
design, and soil presaturation. As they are generally not cost effective, these measures are very seldom
utilized for flatwork because it's less costly to simply replace any damaged or distressed sections than
to "structurally" design them. Even if "structural" design parameters are applied to flatwork
construction, there would still be relative movements between adjoining types of structures and other
improvements (e.g., curb and sidewalk). This is particularly true as the level of care during construction
of flatwork is often not as meticulous as that for structures. Unfortunately, it is fairly common practice
for flatwork to be poured on subgrade soils, which have been allowed to dry out since site grading.
Generally after flatwork construction is completed, landscape irrigation begins, utility lines are
pressurized, and drainage systems are utilized; presenting the potential for water to enter the dry
subgrade soils, causing the soil to expand. Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and
GEOTEK, INC..
MINIMUM
MINIMUM AGGREGATE
ASSUMED TRAFFIC
SUBGRADE
ASPHALT
THICKNESS (in.)
Aggregate
Subbase
RIGHT -OF -AWAY
R -VALUE
CONCRETE
THICKNESS
Base (314"
(in.)
minus)
(Pitrun)
Residential
Normal Traffic
10
2.5
4.0
12
TI = 6.0
Collector
Normal Traffic
10
3.0
4.0
18
TI = 8.0
DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
Site Improvements
As is commonly known, expansive soils are problematic with respect to the design, construction and
long term performance of concrete flatwork. Due to the nature of concrete flatwork, it is essentially
impossible to totally mitigate the effects of soil expansion. Typical measures to control soil expansion
for structures include; low expansive soil caps, deepened foundation system, increased structural
design, and soil presaturation. As they are generally not cost effective, these measures are very seldom
utilized for flatwork because it's less costly to simply replace any damaged or distressed sections than
to "structurally" design them. Even if "structural" design parameters are applied to flatwork
construction, there would still be relative movements between adjoining types of structures and other
improvements (e.g., curb and sidewalk). This is particularly true as the level of care during construction
of flatwork is often not as meticulous as that for structures. Unfortunately, it is fairly common practice
for flatwork to be poured on subgrade soils, which have been allowed to dry out since site grading.
Generally after flatwork construction is completed, landscape irrigation begins, utility lines are
pressurized, and drainage systems are utilized; presenting the potential for water to enter the dry
subgrade soils, causing the soil to expand. Recommendations for exterior concrete flatwork design and
GEOTEK, INC..
JUB ENGINEERS February 22, 2013
W.O.1655-ID3 PAGE 12
construction can be provided upon request. If, in the future, any additional improvements are planned
for the site, recommendations concerning the geological or geotechnical aspects of design and
construction of said improvements could be provided upon request. This office should be notified in
advance of any fill placement, grading, or trench backfilling after rough grading has been completed.
This includes any grading, utility trench and retaining wall backfills.
Landscape Maintenance and Planting
Water has been shown to weaken the inherent strength of all earth materials. Slope stability is
significantly reduced by overly wet conditions. Graded slopes constructed within and utilizing onsite
materials would be erosive. Eroded debris may be minimized and suriicial slope stability enhanced by
establishing and maintaining a suitable vegetation cover as soon as possible after construction.
Compaction to the face of fill slopes would tend to minimize short-term erosion until vegetation is
established. Plants selected for landscaping should be lightweight, deep-rooted types, which require
little water and are capable of surviving the prevailing climate. From a geotechnical standpoint
leaching is not recommended for establishing landscaping. If the surface soils are processed for the
purpose of adding amendments, they should be recompacted to 90 percent compaction. Only the
amount of irrigation necessary to sustain plant life should be provided. Over watering the landscape
areas could adversely affect proposed site improvements. We recommend that any proposed open
bottom planter areas adjacent to proposed structures, be eliminated for a minimum distance of 5 feet
and desert landscape using xeriscape technology be used outside of this buffer zone. As an alternative,
closed bottom type planters could be utilized. An outlet, placed in the bottom of the planter, could be
installed to direct drainage away from structures or any exterior concrete flatwork. Irrigation timers
should be adjusted on a monthly basis.
Soil Corrosion
Based on our experience in the area, the soils onsite should have a negligible corrosive potential to
concrete and metal, materials selected for construction purposes should be resistant to corrosion. Where
permitted by building code PVC pipe should be utilized. All concrete should be designed, mixed,
placed, finished, and cured in accordance with the guidelines presented by the Portland Cement
Association (PCA) and the American Concrete Institute (ACI).
Mining of Construction Materials
GTI will recommend that the onsite materials be utilized as utility trench backfill. GTI could provide
additional consultation and input regarding this matter upon request.
Trench Excavation
All footing trench excavations should be observed by a representative of this office prior to placing
reinforcement. Footing trench spoil and any excess soils generated from utility trench excavations
should be compacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent if not removed from the site.
Considering the nature of the onsite soils, it should be anticipated that caving or sloughing could be a
factor in subsurface excavations. Shoring or excavating the trench walls at the angle of repose
(typically 25 to 45 degrees) may be necessary and should be anticipated in non-cemented soils. All
excavations should be observed by one of our representatives and conform to national and local safety
codes.
GEOTEK, INC.
JUB ENGINEERS February 22, 2013
W.O.1655-ID3 PAGE 13
Utility Trench Backfill
Considering the overall nature of the soil -encountered onsite, if should be anticipated that materials will
need to be imported to the site for use as pipe bedding and pipe zone material. Utility trench backfill
should be placed to the following standards. All onsite interior and exterior utility trench backfill
should be brought to near optimum moisture content and then compacted to obtain a minimum relative
compaction of 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Compaction testing and observation, along with
probing should be performed to verify the desired results. Sand backfill, unless excavated from the
trench, should not be used adjacent to perimeter footings or in trenches on slopes. Compaction testing
and observation, along with probing should be performed to verify the desired results. Offsite utility
trenches should be compacted to a minimum of 90 percent relative compaction. Compaction testing
and observation, along with probing should be performed to verify the desired results.
Drainage
Positive site drainage should be maintained at all times in accordance with the IBC. Drainage should
not flow uncontrolled down any descending slope. Water should be directed away from foundations
and not allowed to pond and/or seep into the ground. Pad drainage should be directed toward the street
or other approved area. The ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from
the building at a minimum of 5 -percent for a minimum distance of 10 feet measured perpendicularly to
the face of the wall. If physical obstructions prohibit 10 feet of horizontal distance, a 5 -percent slope
shall be provided to an approved alternate method of diverting water away from the foundation. Swales
used for this purpose shall be sloped a minimum of 2 -percent where located within 10 feet of the
building foundation. Impervious surfaces within 10 feet of the building foundation shall be sloped a
minimum of 2 -percent away from the building. Roof gutters and down spouts should be utilized to
control roof drainage. Down spouts should outlet onto paved areas or a minimum of five feet from
proposed structures or into a subsurface drainage system. Areas of seepage may develop due to
irrigation or heavy rainfall. Minimizing irrigation will lessen this potential. If areas of seepage develop,
recommendations for minimizing this effect could be provided upon request.
GEOTEK, INC.
JUB ENGINEERS
W.O.1655-ID3
PLAN REVIEW
February 22, 2013
PAGE 14
Final grading, foundation, and improvement plans should be submitted to this office for review and
comment as they become available, to minimize any misunderstandings between the plans and
recommendations presented herein. In addition, foundation excavations and earthwork construction
performed on the site should be observed and tested by this office. If conditions are found to differ
substantially from those stated, appropriate recommendations would be offered at that time.
LIMITATIONS
The materials encountered on the project site and utilized in our laboratory study are believed
representative of the area; however, soil materials vary in character between excavations and conditions
exposed during mass grading. Site conditions may vary due to seasonal changes or other factors.
GcoTek, Inc. assumes no responsibility or liability for work, testing, or recommendations performed or
provided by others. Since our study is based upon the site materials observed, selective laboratory
testing and engineering analysis, the conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions.
These opinions have been derived in accordance with current standards of practice and no warranty is
expressed or implied. Standards of practice are subject to change with time.
The opportunity to be of service is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions concerning this report
or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
GeoTek, Inc.
J
N, lv
David C. Waite, PE
Senior Engineer
-2_-22--13
GEOTEK, INC.
Jererny wuson,nl
Project Manager
', ` �
', � •�
s —. NQS ;
s o t� --•
�
--- ; u
. \�� �
_
t'\ y
tl
fl
\
1-
+-0vr14nqd
Rd. t
x
l
Cv
10 19
GI
uu
21
-...M.,,.�
AN -
\\\\\
�+
f
��,
-
�
W
4 � . • � {
u \) •lam �
��
11
5
y
c ory Rd.
\
0 1 �� tis
3i � Flu /1
_•,
rEnaLt E„:
'.+,
,�
/i 1Il�II :..\\1
\�- i
Oji '.__
�.
t.. RE�A^p¢M/{J
•�.I �!� IA71_. -�
APPROXIMATE SCALE
O MILE 1
Source: TOPOI, USGS Cloverdale, ID Quadrangle, 1998.
Scale: As Shown
FIGURE I
SITE LOCATION MAP
Kannelle Subdivision
Meridian, Idaho
G E Q T E K Prepared for: JU3 Engineers.
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Work Order No-: Report Date: Drawr By:
320 E. Corporate Dr, Suite 300, Meridian, ID 83642 1655-ID3 2/22/13 DC W
(208) 888-7010 (phone)1(208) 888-7924 (FAX)
O Approximate Percolation Test Location
O Approximate Monitoring Well and Percolation Test Location At
• Approximate Monitoring Well Location
• Approximate Test Pit Location
Source: Google Earth, GcoTek field observations, 2013
Scale: Not to Scale
PIz
TEST PITT LOCATION
12c., Karmelle Subdivision
Meridian, Idaho
is E Q T E K Prepared for: JUB Engineers.
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Work Older No.: Report Date: Dw\vn By
320 E. Corporate Dr, Suite 300, Meridian, ID 83642 16554D3 2/22/13 JLW
(208) 888-7010 (phone) / (208) 888-7924 (FAX)
Stmeno at Wall
Foundation w/ Type V Cement
Select Sand or'/, -inch AB
7— Visqueen
COMPETENT SOIL
'A'— Depth of Footing= 24" min.
'B'— 12" min. Compacted Fill below Footing
LOW EXPANSIVE CONDITIONS
Remove/Process
12" min. into
alluvium
..[....
NOT TO SCALE
Note: Concrete Slab shown is a "typical" detail only. Actual shape and dimensions to be designed by structural engineer and
detailed in the project plans. The propose of this detail is to show minimum footing depth, width, loose soil processing depths, and
511 blanket thickness.
FIGURE 3
MINIMUM OVEREXCAVATION/FILL BLANKET
Kannellc Subdivision
Meridian, Idaho
G E O T E K Prepared for: JUB Engineers.
GEOTECHNICAL I ENVIRONMENTAL I MATERIALS
Work Order No._ Report Date Drawn By:
320 E. Corporate Dr, Suite 300, Meridian, ID 83642 1655-ID3 02/22/13 DCW
(208) 888-7010 (phone) / (208) 888.7924 (FAX)
APPENDIX A
GEOTEK, INC.
REFERENCES
Ada County Highway District Development Policy Manual, Revised by Resolution No. 690, October
2003
ASTM, 200, "Soil and Rock: American Society for Testing and Materials," vol. 4.08 for ASTM test
methods D-420 to D-4914, 153 standards, 1,026 pages; and vol. 4.09 for ASTM test method D-
4943 to highest number.
Breckinridge, R.M., Lewis, R.S., Adema, G.W., Weisz, D.W., 2003, Map of Miocene and Younger
Faults in Idaho, Idaho Geological Survey, University of Idaho
Collett, Russell A., 1980, Soil Survey of Ada County, Eastern Part, United States Department of
Agriculture Soil Conversation Service, United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land
Management, Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, University of Idaho College of Agriculture.
Day, Robert W., 1999, Geotechnical and Foundation Engineering — Design and Construction
Day, Robert W., 2002, Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Handbook
GeoTek, Inc., In-house proprietary information.
Idaho Department of Water Resources, Treasure Valley Hydrology — Geology, January 2003
Idaho Department of Water Resources, Well Information, Well Driller Reports, 2002
Idaho Transportation Department CD-ROM Publications, September 2003
Johnson, Bruce R. and Raines,, Gary L., 1995, Digital representation of the Idaho state geologic map: a
contribution to the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. USES Open -File
Report 95-690
Malde, H.E„ 1991. Quaternary geology and structural history of the Snake River Plain, Idaho and
Oregon. In: The Geology of North America, Quaternary Nonglacial Geology: Conterminous
U.S., Vol. K-2, 252-281 pp.
Othberg, K.L., 1994. Geology and geomorphology of the Boise Valley and adjoining areas, western
Snake River Plain, Idaho. Idaho Geological Survey Bulletin 29: 54 pp.
USGS, Cloverdale Quadrangle, 7.5 -Minute Series Topographic Map, 1979.
USGS, 2003, Seismic Hazard Map of Idaho, Peak Acceleration (%g) with 2% Probability of
Exceedance in 50 years.
GEOTEK, INC.
APPENDIX B
GEOTEK, INC.
TEST PIT LOG W.O.1653-ID3
Karmelle Subdivision NO: 1
G E O T E K JUB Engineers DATE: 2/5/2013
SAMPLES
6
a
E
w
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Remarks
v
y v
a
E ae.
tp~
_o
m
'o
y
U
�
❑
e
FILL: Brown to dark brown silt with organics; moist to wet
0'-1'
1
Soft
GP
Light tan to tan sandy gravel. Some cemented layers.
1'-4'
2
slightly moist
Medium dense to dense
3-
4—
4
SW -SM
Reddish tan well graded sand with silt; slightly moist to moist
4'-12'
5
Medium dense
6-
7-
7891011
8-
9-
10-
11
12
Test pit ends at 12 feet
13-
314151617181920Legend:
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20—
Legend:F7Ring Sample ®Bulk Sample FINo Recovery '�7 Water Table
GeoTek, Inc. 320 E. Corporate Dr., STE 300 Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT LOG W.O.1655-ID3
Karmelle Subdivision NO: 2
G E O T E K JUB Engineers DATE: 2/5/2013
SAMPLES
E
`w
M
E
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Remarks
a
4
E >',
N ~
o e
m
•o
0
U
FILL: Brown to dark brown silt with organics; moist to wet
0'-1'
1
Soft
GP
Light tan to tan sandy gravel. Some cemented layers.
1'-5.5'
2
slightly moist
Medium dense to dense
3-
4-
456
5-
6—
SW -SM
Reddish tan well graded sand with silt; slightly moist to moist
5.5-10'
Medium dense
7-
8-
8910
9-
10
Test Pit Ends at 10 Feet
11
12-
21314151617181920Legend:
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20—
Legend:FIRing Sample ®Bulk Sample E]No Recovery Water Table
GeoTek, Inc. 320 E. Corporate Dr., STE 300 Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT LOG W.O.1655-ID3
Mace Road Project NO: 3
G E O T E K ,IUB Engineers DATE: 2/5/2013
_
C
°
M
wz
s-.
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Remarks
tAMPLES
N
�
€
FILL: Brown to dark brown silt with sand and organics; moist to
0'-1'
wet
Soft
i
GP
Light tan to tan sany gravel; slightly moist
1'-3'
2-
Medium dense to dense
3—
3
i>
SW -SM
Reddish tan well graded sand with silt; slightly moist to moist
3'-10'
4-
Medium dense
5-
567810
6-
7-
8—
to—
Test pit ends at 10 feet
11
12-
21314151617181920Legend:
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20—
Legend:Ring Sample ®Bulk Sample E]No Recovery 'K7 Water Table
GeoTek, Inc. 320 E. Corporate Dr., STE 300 Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT LOG W.O.1655-ID3
Karmelle Subdivision NO: 4
G E O T E K JUB Engineers DATE: 2/5/2013
SAMPLES
E
6
a
s
a
E
N
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Remarks
a
O
g
E a
N~
3
o
m
o
N
U
7
❑
b
FILL: Light brown to brown silt with organics; moist to wet
0'-1.5'
1
Soft
2
SM
Tan to light brown silty sand; moist
1.5'-3'
Medium dense
3
GP
Tan light brown gravel with sand and some cemented layers.
3'-6'
4
slightly miost
Medium dense to dense
5-
6—
6
-
SW -SM
Reddish tan well graded sand with silt; slightly moist to moist
6'-10'
7-
Medium dense
8-
89Test
9 -
Test pit ends at 10 feet
11
12-
21314151617181920Legend:
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20-
Legend:ORing Sample ®Bulk Sample F-1No Recovery Water Table
GeoTek, Inc. 320 E. Corporate Dr., STE 300 Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
TEST PIT LOG W.O. 1655-103
Karmelle Subdivision NO: 5
G E O T E K JUB Engineers DATE: 2/5/2013
a
s
E
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION AND COMMENTS
Remarks
tAMPLES
FILL: Light brown to brown lean clay with organics; moist to wet
0'-1.5'
Soft
1
2
F
SM
Tan to light brown silty sand; slightly moist to moist
1.5-3'
Medium dense to dense
q..
3
SW -SM
Tan to light brown sand with some gravel. Some cemented layers.
3'-11'
slightly moist
Medium dense to dense
4
5-
6-
67891011
7-
8-
9-
10-
11
Test pit ends at 11 feet
12-
21314151617181920Legend:
13-
14-
15-
16-
17-
18-
19-
20—
Legend:Ring Sample ®Bulk Sample ENo Recovery -\7 Water Table
GeoTek, Inc. 320 E. Corporate Dr., STE 300 Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208) 888-7010 Fax: (208) 888-7924
APPENDIX C
GEOTEK, INC.
FIELD TESTS AND OBSERVATIONS (1655-ID3)
PERCOLATION TESTS
The infiltration rate was determined by conducting percolation tests for onsite earth materials. The infiltration
rate was determined in inches per hour in general accordance with the Boise Storm Water Management Design
Manual Appendix D. Infiltration rate results are presented below.
LOCATION
INFILTRATION RATE
(Inches/Hour)
TP -1 @ 3.3'
24+
TP -4 @ 5.5'
8
Ground water monitoring results are presented below. Ground water elevation results are recorded in feet.
GEOTEK, INC.
TP -3
TP -4
TP -5
DATE
TP -1
TP -2
Depth —13'
Depth — 9.5'
Depth —10.8'
2/8/13
No Well
No Well
No Water
No Water
No Water
GEOTEK, INC.
APPENDIX D
GEOTEK, INC.
LABORATORY TESTS RESULTS (1655-ID3)
RESISTANCE R -VALUE TESTING
Tests were conducted on representative soil samples, in general accordance with Idaho test method T-8, to
determine the soil's performance when placed in the base, subbase, or subgrade of a road subjected to traffic.
LOCATION
R -VALUE @ 200 psi
TP -5 @ V— 1.5'
10
ATTERBERG LIMITS
Atterberg limits were performed on representative samples in general accordance with ASTM D 4318. The
results are shown in the following plates.
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
Sieve analyses were performed in general accordance with AASHTO test method T 27. It should be noted that
materials over 3 inches in size were selectively screened to better reflect the native materials thatwill be left after
processing efforts of the contractor. Test results are presented in the following plates.
GEOTEK, INC.
O
C
J
L��� _�+� iii• �Q 1;���n ��.
�� ��` �� ■ � � 1111111
�� �� � r� ■ - viii" ����� `.� � _ -: "� 1
Hearing Date: January 15, 2015
Project Name: Accomodations Subdivision
File No(s).: PP -14-020
Request(s): Preliminary Plat consisting of fourteen (14) single family residential lots and three
(3) common lots on approximately 4.71 acres in the R-4 zoning district, by
Providence Management, LLC
Location: The site is located on the south side of E. Falcon Drive; east of S. Eagle Road in
the NW 1/4 of Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, B.M.