Loading...
Application Materials Charlene Way From:clerk@meridiancity.org Sent:Tuesday, January 05, 2021 12:08 PM To:Charlene Way Subject:Development Application Transmittal - Ambles Run Subdivision AZ PP H-2020-0124 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Development Application Transmittal Link to Project Application: Ambles Run Subdivision AZ PP H-2020-0124 th Hearing Date: February 18 2021 Assigned Planner: Joseph Dodson To view the City of Meridian Public Records Repository, Click Here The above “Link to Project Application” will provide you with any further information on the project. The City of Meridian is requesting comments and recommendations on the application referenced above. To review the application and project information please click on the application link above. The City of Meridian values transparency and makes a variety of information available to the public online through our public records repository. We request that you submit your comments or recommendations prior to the hearing date specified above. When responding, please reference the file number of the project. If responding by email, please send comments to cityclerk@meridiancity.org. For additional information associated with this application please contact the City of Meridian Planner identified above at 208-884-5533. Thank you, 1 Hearing Date: February 18, 2021 PLANNER: Joseph Dodson File No.: H-2020-0124 Project Name: Ambles Run Subdivision Request: Annexation&Zoning of 2.88 acres of land with an R-2 zoning district and a preliminary plat consisting of 6 single-family residential lots,by HomeFound Group. Location: The site is located on Lot 26,Block 1 of the county Dunwoody Subdivision,approximately 1/4 mile east of N.Locust Grove Road and all/2 mile south of Chinden Boulevard,in the SW 1/4 of the NW 1/4 of Section 29, Township 4N.,Range IE. Planning Division E IDIN�=" HEARING APPLICATION Type of Review Requested Hearing File number: H-2020-0124 Assigned Planner: Joseph Dodson Related Files: Applicant Information Applicant name: MICHAEL MILLER, HOMEFOUND GROUP Phone: Applicant address: 1308 N 12TH ST, BOISE, ID 83702 Email: Michael@homefoundgroup.com Ownername: MAUREEN MILLER Phone: Fax: Owner address: 1308 N 12TH ST, BOISE, ID 83702 Email: Agent name(e.g.architect,engineer,developer,representative): MICHAEL MILLER Firm name: HOMEFOUND GROUP Phone: Fax: Address: 1308 N 12TH ST Email: Michael@homefoundgroup.com Contact name: Phone: Fax: Contact address: Email: Subject Property Information Location/street address: Assessor's parcel number(s): R1966962602 Township,range,section: 4N 1 E29 Project Description Project/Application Name: Ambles Run Subdivision -AZ, PP Description of work: Annexation and Zoning of 2.88 acres of land with a request for the R-2 zoning district and a Preliminary Plat for 6 detached single-family residential building lots. 33 E Broadway Avenue,Suite 102 * Meridian,Idaho 83642 Phone:(208)884-5533 • Facsimile:(208)888-6854 • Website:www.meridaincity.org 1 33 E Broadway Avenue,Suite 102 • Meridian,Idaho 83642 Phone:(208)884-5533 • Facsimile:(208)888-6854 • Website:www.meridaincity.org 2 Application Information APPLICATION TYPES Is this application exempt from fees?: No Annexation and Zoning-AZ: CHECKED AZ-Staff Prepared Consensual: No Preliminary Plat-PP: CHECKED ADDRESS VERIFICATION Address Verification Permit Number: LDAV-2020-0820 TYPE OF USE PROPOSED Residential: CHECKED Single-Family Detached: CHECKED PROPERTY INFORMATION General Location: Between Vienna Woods Sub and Dunwoody Sub Current Land Use: vacant Total Acreage: 2.88 Traffic Study Required per ACHD: No ZONING DISTRICT(S) County: CHECKED FLUM DESIGNATION(S) Low Density Residential: CHECKED Acreage-Low Density Res: 2.88 PROJECT INFORMATION Site Plan Date(MM/DD/YYYY): 12/9/2020 Landscape Plan Date(MM/DD/YYYY): 12/16/2020 Elevations Date(MM/DD/YYYY): NA Percentage of Site Devoted to Building: 8 Percentage of Site Devoted to Landscaping: 67 Percentage of Site Devoted to Paving: 25 Irrigation District: Shavrer Lateral Primary Irrigation Source: Shavrer Lateral Number of Residential Units: 6 Minimum Square Footage of Living Area(Excluding Garage): 2000 Gross Density: 2.08 Net Density: 2.49 What was the date of your pre-application meeting?: 12/07/2020 What was the date of your neighborhood meeting?: 11/09/2020 In Reclaimed Water Buffer: No PROPERTY POSTING I agree to comply with the Commitment of Property Posting regulations per UDC II- CHECKED 5A-6D: 33 E Broadway Avenue,Suite 102 • Meridian,Idaho 83642 Phone:(208)884-5533 • Facsimile:(208)888-6854 • Website:www.meridaincity.org 3 33 E Broadway Avenue,Suite 102 • Meridian,Idaho 83642 Phone:(208)884-5533 • Facsimile:(208)888-6854 • Website:www.meridaincity.org 4 AZ/RZ ONLY R-2: CHECKED Acreage-R-2: 2.88 PLATS ONLY Number of Building Lots: 6 Number of Common Lots: 0 Total Number of Lots: 6 Minimum Lot Size: .5 acres Average Lot Size: .5 acres Area of Plat: 2.88 acres Plat Date(MM/DD/YYYY): 12/17/2020 QUALIFYING OPEN SPACE Parkways: CHECKED TIME EXTENSION INFORMATION Number of months extension: 24 APPLICATION DISCLAIMER I have read and accept the above terms: CHECKED Your signature: Michael Todd Miller MISC Is new record: No 33 E Broadway Avenue,Suite 102 • Meridian,Idaho 83642 Phone:(208)884-5533 • Facsimile:(208)888-6854 • Website:www.meridaincity.org 5 33 E Broadway Avenue,Suite 102 • Meridian,Idaho 83642 Phone:(208)884-5533 • Facsimile:(208)888-6854 • Website:www.meridaincity.org 6 Project Narrative for Ambles Run Subdivision on Parcel #1966962602 Description: This proposed development project is located east of Locust Grove at the dead end of Chopin Ave between the Vienna Woods subdivision and Dunwoody Subdivision. The parcel is 2.88 acres. The highest and best use for this piece of land is residential development. Vicinity Map 0.225 °Al tiles 1�P sbine�N.ridr.b!na m00 a[e.rpxa FUm�1 Legend eTow NVRE WAY eae['Hansa ear. el+�eKim ®Projec't Location .++ a w: v 2T .-�. w✓eror u Parcels-Ada County F Gol ff.N OAN CT t R-d ECOMMANDER sT R-2 rL E iui L[ST ETu151�[T 1 C 5F4 UNfKf R N i E SAN PE DftO 5 E F SdN pEpRO CT x LNLLLLXTY I L f�rNCtEt sr n �® ORZC© EMOZAR�sE mFmOIARf[T X L •+_� fSA9ALIOIIS � R.8 ncT �r�E IDIANA- user.••abm�ni This parcel has been separated from the Dunwoody Subdivision and is currently zoned RUT in Ada County. Ada county does not allow for development of homes on less than 5 acres and, as such,this project proposes Annexation into the city of Meridian under R4 or R2 zoning for medium density residential housing. Our project proposes subdivision of the parcel into 6 - 8 lots, each with an area of approximately.3 to .5 acres. Meridian has prepared for possible annexation of this parcel and street access and utilities are already stubbed from Vienna Woods through Chopin Ave. General Impact and Compliance: Traffic will flow from Locust Grove, down Strauss Dr and through Chopin Ave. The right-of-way will extend from Chopin Ave into the proposed subdivision and end in a cul-de-sac and comply with ACHD requirements for turn-around. 1 E Dun t 4 AP all d el Ct = m a - a � • t IL � o = s .• 'V) E-Mozart 5t f f "E Strauss Dr i Any future development of the surrounding land will be able to use our right of way through Chopin. We have spoken to the landowners surrounding our parcel and they have provided us with their plan to exit through Dunwoody Ct. (This is a proposed plan and is only for reference. Our parcel will reflect the plan(s) submitted with the application) 1Ar 9L _ + An. A Ob., 4� - - p ;V4 i1 5y 1 Utilities will stub from Vienna woods and will not require any special or unusual demands from the city of Meridian. There is an irrigation ditch located on the south side of the project that will provide water to the intended development(s).We are currently working with the other homeowners to the east and west,as well as Jeannette Johnson with Shavrer Lateral Water Association,to develop a comprehensive plan that will provide the correct amount and flow of water to each existing homeowner and both future developments. Power lines along Locust Grove will provide electrical power to all proposed lots and special modifications or changes to the lines will not be necessary to provide electrical service. The homes will be built by Dustin Riggs of Idaho Impact Construction. The homes will be approximately 2,400sgft and will be single level with an upstairs bonus room. There will be a berm on the western and eastern side of the development and wood fencing will surround each of the homes. Walkways will have a landscaped median between the road and the sidewalks. Attached is a photo of Dustin's `Tamarack' build which conceptualizes the intended look and feel of the homes. A w1 Rf - "R � `• '•f ** Due to COVID-19 concerns the neighborhood meeting for this intended project was held via Zoom. That meeting was recorded and is available upon request. The chat function of the meeting was used as an official sign-in and a transcript of that chat has been submitted along with our application. Ambles Run Timeline of Events grew up on this piece of land, my parents were one of the original homeowners in Dunwoody Ct. We lived there for almost 30 years and have seen first-hand the growth that Meridian has experienced. We watched Vienna Woods, and later, Three Corners Ranch subdivisions spring up around us. I remember when Chinden Blvd was a two-lane road heading out into the middle of nowhere. It is exciting to see how Meridian has grown. The piece of land on which our project is intended, used to be on open space lot connected to the residential lot (Lot 25) in Dunwoody Subdivision. In July of 2019 the residential lot was sold to Dale and Lonnie Hope and the open space lot was separated from Dunwoody Subdivision during that transaction. There is a stipulation in the Dunwoody CC&R's there shall be no "separation of lots" and at the time of the purchase and sale of Lot 25 that issue was addressed by the current HOA president on the Dunwoody board. My parents had separated, Maureen Miller had bought Richard Price out of residential Lot 25, and she held Title sole and separate. The open space lot is held in both Maureen and Richard's name. She was able only to sell her home on Lot 25 and the HOA was contacted by Title to get prorations and permission. I have spoken with Title One and the transaction was completed after the Title Company cleared all issues surrounding title, including those with the HOA, and that purchase and sale has been insured by the Title Company. Currently, the highest and best use for the land is residential development. In July and August of 2020, we began exploring our options in respect to selling and/or developing the land and our first choice was to offer the land back to Dunwoody. We asked Dale and Lonnie Hope, the current owners of Lot 25, if they would like to purchase the lot from us. They declined and we looked into selling the land to someone else. As part of our due diligence, we contacted the county and discovered that the land was zoned RUT, and that Ada county would not allow for us, or anyone, to build on the property because it was less that 5 acres. In order to get services to any homes on the land we would have to be annexed into Meridian. Meridian has already prepared for the annexation of the property and street access and utilities have been stubbed through Vienna woods at the end of Chopin Ave. In coordinating with the City, we prepared a plan for 8 homes in accordance with R4 zoning which is contiguous with the zoning of Vienna Woods. After we presented our plan to the City, Joseph Dodson, encouraged us to further our due diligence and contact the surrounding homeowners to inquire about their plans for the surrounding undeveloped land. Those homeowners including Monte Moore a resident of Dunwoody, do have a plan to develop. We met with their developer, Tucker Johnson, and he presented their plan to us, which is attached in the narrative. We will stub utilities at the end of our cul-de-sac, and they will be able to use our right of way to provide access when they do develop. I approached first, Dale and Lonnie Hope, and then the Dunwoody HOA to disclose our plans. The current Dunwoody president, Jeff Wilding, expressed his concerns about the previous President allowing the separation of lots. I asked for their Bylaws detailing the powers of the board, how voting should take place, how it should be recorded and what annexing and deannexing of the subdivision would look like. I also contacted the county, with which all HOAs are required to record their bylaws. There is nothing recorded. They do provide in Article VI of the CC&Rs that a single member of the board may make decisions on behalf of the board, unanimously. Because they have no bylaws detailing how such actions should take place, I contacted a lawyer and asked that she draw up an amendment that I could present to the Dunwoody HOA. The current HOA claims that there was no conversation about splitting the lots at the time of the sale of Lot 25. We have several emails detailing that exchange, but in good faith I presented the amendment to the board and asked them to take a vote. They voted against the amendment. We were not included in that vote. We have not been contacted by the Dunwoody Association since the separation of our lot. They have neither asked for dues or presented us with any homeowner matters, nor have they included us in any discussions or voting for the last two years. They have had that entire time to correct any issues or concerns that they have about the separation of Lot 25 from Lot 26. That being said, I have continued to coordinate with the Dunwoody president as well as the other homeowners to the east and west of our property. In my communication with Dunwoody Jeff has asked twice that we work with the other development project, he has also asked that we request R2 zoning from Meridian to decrease our density. We do not wish to be part of a 40-home development, but we will work with them to provide irrigation and a cohesive feel for both subdivisions. In response to his request for lower density, we spoke to Joseph, our coordinator, and he confirmed that a request for R2 zoning could be approved and we drew out a plan for 6 homes on .5 acres and presented that option to Dunwoody. They will not support that plan either. However, the president does support the other development. In the plan provided us by their developer, the lot to the north of our property, that is still connected to Dunwoody, has a plan that will divide the property into 3 lots, each less than an acre. It seems he wishes us to abide by covenants of a subdivision we have not been a part of for almost 2 years, but the current adjacent homeowner that is under the purview of the Dunwoody CC&Rs does not have to follow the acre lot restriction. I imagine it is difficult for the president to coordinate so many moving pieces at once, but we feel we have been more than open and willing to work with the neighboring homeowners. Currently I meet every four weeks with the homeowners, including Dale Hope and Monte Moore, along with Jeannette Johnson of the Shavrer Lateral Water Users Association to discuss plans to upgrade the irrigation system. Our intention is to recover a waste ditch located on Locust Grove to create a returning flow to the ditch so that continuous uninterrupted water usage is available to every homeowner. In resurrecting this ditch, we will be able to provide the correct amount of water and flow to both developments as well as the existing homes connected to the lateral. This project is a small but carefully crafted development. The intended look, feel and construction of these homes will not only support the value and integrity of the surrounding neighborhoods, but in our opinion increase the overall aesthetic. We have taken our time drawing up these plans and have used all four months since our pre-app to navigate the concerns of all the interested parties, and we continue to do so. We believe that our due diligence has been thorough, and we look forward to continuing to work together to help realize our development project: Ambles Run. TitteOne a title & escrow co. PROPERTY INFORMATION Date: 10/22/2020 Prepared By: TitleOne Customer Service Property Address: E Dunwoody Ct Meridian 83646 Parcel Number: R1966962602 Warmest Regards, The TitleOne Team TitleOne Corporation www.TitleOneCorp.com Disclaimer Any property information contained in this email is subject to the following:This report is based on a search of our tract indexes of the county records. This is not a title or ownership report and no examination of the title to the property described has been made.For this reason,no liability beyond the amount paid for this report is assumed hereunder,and the company is not responsible beyond the amount paid for any errors and omissions contained herein. Ada County Property Profile Information TitleOne ;L WIN: X --crt— C40 Parcel ID:R1966962602 Ada CAty Assesscrlw Property Addr:E Dunwoody Ct Meridian ID 83646 Property Type:Residential Owner Information Owner Name:Price, Richard A Second Owner:Miller, Maureen E Mail Addr:1985 E Dunwoody Ct Meridian ID 83646 Assessor lk4- F Information Legal Desc:PAR#6602 W'LY POR LOT 26 BLK 01 DUNWOODY SUB R/S 7837#6600-B Treasurer Information Subdivision:Dunwoody Sub Year:2017 Tax:$404.26 Lot/Block:26/1 Year:2018 Tax:$417.60 Twn/Rng/Sec:04N/01 E/29 Year:2019 Tax:$351.02 Acres:2.88 Irrigation Dist:SETTLERS IRR Assessor Categories Tax Code Area:242 Year Cat. Description Acres Value 2019 Levy Rate:0.0089 2020 150 RES SUB LOT 2.88 $200,300.00 Zoning:Ada County-RUT Totals: 2.88 $200,300.00 Homeowner Exemption: Land Information Residential Acres:2.88 Commercial Other Acres: Street: Acres: Water Source: Sewer: Sidewalks:No Curbs and Gutters:No View: Water Influence: Corner:No Utilities: Topography: Recreation: Sentry Dynamics, Inc.and its customers make no representations,warranties or conditions,express or implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of information contained in this report. ADA COUNTY RECORDER J.DAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT 9.06 3 001$ti DER Ne va Nev pM III IIIIIIIAIII�II#IIIII#IllllIlll III' DER" Nava Raney RECORDED-REQUEST OF t0�0Sg6g2 Richard Price WARRANTY DEED RICHARD A.PRICE,an unmarried person and MAUREEN E.MILLER,an unmarried person GRANTOR of City of Meridian County of Ada State of Idaho, hereby GRANT, BARGAIN,SELL AND CONVEY UNTO: RICHARD A. PRICE, an unmarried person and MAUREE+N E. MILLER, an unmarried person GRANTEE of City of Meridian County of Ada State of Idaho ,the following described real property in Ada County, State of Idaho, more particularly described as follows,to wit: Attached Exhibit"A" TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said premises, with their appurtenances unto the said heirs and assigns forever. And the said Grantor(s)does(do)hereby covenant to and with the said Grantee(s),that Grantor(s)is'are the owner(s)in fee simple of the said premises; that said premises arc free from all encumbrances EXCEPT those to which this conveyance is expressly made subject and those made, suffered or done by the Grantee(s); and subject to reservations,restrictions,dedications, easements,assessments, if any for the current year, winch are not yet due and payable, and that Grantor(s) will warrant and defend the same from all lawful claim whatsoever. VATNESS, die hand(s) of said grantor(s), this day of April 2007 Richard A.Price Maureen E.Miller State of Idaho } S5 County of Ada } On this 1 day of —April _ 2007_ before me, the undersigned,a Notary-Public in and for d State,personatly appeared Richard A.Price ' r known or identified to me to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same. NOTARY PUBLIC 1 Residing in: i 1 WARRANTY DEED—NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENTS): State of_Idaho , County of_Ada , ss, On this I JIrk'day of April in the year 2007,before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared fA_-,,cc_ F M, 1 ie�� known or identified to me to be the person(s)whose names)is/are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same. Signature: dam— ^' S �vT�� '�► r Name: Residing at: �3,.y z y> AUB LIB My commission expires: r 2_ I Y � ��� � ��. �•�...�•'��0.4 '•. G F ID ~*+808SIuis41 TEALETS LAND 181 E. bath Street e Carden City, Idaho 83714 SURVEYING (208) 385-0636 Fax (208) 385-€696 Project No.: 3049 Date: April 12, 2007 EXHIBIT "A41 A parcel of land being a portion Lot 26 of Block 1 of Dunwoody Subdivision, as filed for record in the office of Ada County Recorder, Boise, Idaho, in Book 58 at Page 5482, as shown on record of survey No. 7837, as filed for record in the office of Ada County Recorder, Boise, Idaho under instrument No. 107033607, lying in the NW 114 of Section 29, TAN., R.1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at an iron pin marking the Southwest corner of said Lot 26: thence along the West boundary line of said Lot 26 North 00003'17"West 331.00 feet to an iron pin marking the Northwest corner of said Lot 26 thence along the North boundary of said Lot 26 North 89°35'30" East 379.11 feet to an iron pin; thence leaving said North boundary South 00004'37" East 331.00 feet to an iron pin on the South boundary of said Lot 26; thence along said South boundary South 89035'30"West 379.24 feet to an iron pin marking the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Parcel of Land Contains 2.88 Acres, more or less. � 3IP- . 0 .0 41 } AFFIDAVIT01T LEGAL INTEREST STATE 4F IDAHO 1 } COUNTY OF ADA ) {narri } (addrs s� bc:irtg [ir%l 414t1Y s,WEt Fn upOrt,u.311, [lepse and say; ]. That 1 am the iv(. lyd tnAjjo�- c)f the property doscrlilnd on the aua. :I erl, and I cuant my pern-i sskln tsa_ Michael Todd Millen 1308 N. 12111 St, Boise, ID 8 702 f address) to subrT)it the WC011ipunyIM' a pp]1catjcno}pertaining to ihat property_ ?. I acre . t{) incleionifv, dcfent l and hula dw City of Meridiin and its employees harmless 15'um any churn or liabiliky res)oldnm- ft'crin any dispute as to the statements Qurtlaine6 herein or as Co the o%vilendlip Of the propr;r:} wllich i-s the subitct of the,lpplicatioll- h_ I hei-oby "NOL l}L"i'MisS141n try City of Meridi,m st:111=to en[c] JILC ,ubject Irt-aperty i'or litc purpose +_['site i nspc ci i omr -i'cla[tA to prtx:essing saicl appliun6 ors M Ditcd this J..-.._ _tjtT . 01' SUBSCR[I3ED wlitten. WA ul a ,�i) * �)JARr ;��i s tN,i tarv�Public for Who) • i+ P Ll11 L � ` lac\1CjCi3e,ilr',No _ �= .....r- �y �' ;=T:.�ru;�.l:.;.•- :1.c3t�,z, Ssn,tc ]U2 � !+14•.rlut,�n. ]t4u}�u f;3G�2 Pitua:�; 1�Os KK=[- 553 k a4 s,l:u[c'. k?Cl }ti�s23-b85 • V4'cbsirr. _x_,k u_�u r:.i3it�cstv.ore A) DAVIT OF LEGAL INTEREST STATE OF IDAHO } COMFY OF ADA ) . )u� �I a (name) (ad+Errs) (C lty) (state) being firs#duty sworn upOn,cxath,depose atkd xay: 1_ That I am the record owner of the property described on the attached. and I grant my perniiskoa io; Michael Todd Miller 1308 N. 12#h St. BoiSe, ID B3702 {name} (WdMss; to submit the accorapanying applicatlon(s)perfining to Char PVOPCA . 2, I agree to indemnify, &fcnd and hold the City of Meridian=W its @mployees harmlea.i from any claim or liability resulting from any dispute as to the stummems coatained herein or a s to the ownership of the property which is theL subject of the application. I_ f hereby ice¢ permission to City of Meridian staff m enter the subject prapct+ty for she purNse of Rite inspv,�cikms related iD processing said application(s). Datrd this_ {L day of °y t�"�l'c*` ,20 Ik �`_-' 4,A1 (Sipaturc) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN'to before one tho d+ry and year first ahcve written, 1 EVELYN E Cox (Notary public far Idaho) OMMYY PU6LIC-STATE CIF 10t 0 COMNt9$14N N4MA9ER 5Ei7tt haY CONti15S10N Ej�IRES 5 i2 2 Resirlino al t L Aft— My Commissior Expires, 33 E.SruadWMy AW-We,Stdu 102 + M sxidiaa_Idaho 83642 Yhanc; C�11(4)�i' � 533 e Pmowi#v: IRN-eau * V+'ebsitz uww,meridan ta} TEALETS LAND 12594 W. Explorer Drive, Suite 150 - Boise, Idaho 83713 SURVEYING (208) 385-0636 F] Fax (208) 385-0696 Project No.: 4743 Date-. December 16, 2020 DESCRIPTION FOR PROPOSED AMBLES RUN SUBDIVISION A parcel of land being a portion Lot 26 of Block 1 of ❑unwoody Subdivision, as filed for record in the office of Ada County Recorder, Boise, Idaho, in Book 58 at Page 5482. as shown on record of survey No. 7837, as filed for record in the office of Ada County Recorder, Boise, Idaho under instrument No. 107033607, lying in the NW 114 of Section 29, T.4N., R.1 E., B.M.; Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the West 114 corner of said Section 29, marked by an aluminum cap; thence along the East-West centerline of said Section 29, which is also the North boundary of Vienna Woods No. 2 Subdivision North 89°35'30" East 664.68 feet to the Southwest corner of said Lot 26. marked by a 518" iron pin, said point marking the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence along the West boundary line of said Lot 26 North 00'03'17'' West 331.00 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 26, marked by a 518" iron pin; thence along the North boundary of said Lot 26 North 89'35'30" East 379.11 feet to a 518" iron pin; thence leaving said North boundary South 00°04'37" East 331.00 feet to a 518" iron pin on the South boundary of said Lot 26; thence along said South boundary South 89°35'30" West 379.24 feet to an iron pin marking the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said Parcel of Land Contains 2.88 Acres, more or less. LA1VO ^a 347 0 y"! OF A. en •, v E J" F4 t' v 1 0 z q1 ro n a � - _- 7 w m ❑ V 9 ❑ f ro -0 T—F iia ro ro N A ro C i ❑ i N Z _ EOL E o z :3 CZ Vl �yQ Y 1 Z Yl W R., tv t I.- 1:,t"j' •e `:(I N i toys,uic.,La Ru t,l(.PLU,t t -)F rm L - a a a Go- C _ um a u U Q m U 0 Y m a 7� o w r� ❑ 72 a O m A 4 0 -J g T a J 0 7 7 a D 7 N �y IC } (o Q w J Q c U uo cx 1• OCIL y N �Ij p p J {L1 Q i11 C J W Q C * U W Y! p N V V 4, J F U .A p � � J r n [� R W G V W {p U d J C 6 Q O V m l7 NO V C p p m < < U Q J Q OS p p U W U C p Q Q U Q U t1 PV •C m a • um �� C) �n CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES ProjectlSubdivision Name:Dunwoody/Vienna Woods Sub Pre-App Date: 8/20/2020 Staff: Joe Dodson, Bill Parsons, Joe B., Scott C.,Amanda McNutt. Applicant(s)/Contact(s): Michael Miller, Maureen Miller, Dick Price, Marissa Price, and Pat Tealey Location: R1966962602(Lot 26, Block 1 in Dunwoodv Sub.) Size of Property: 2.88 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low Density Residential (no more than 3 du/ac) Existing Use: VacanVAg Existing Zoning: RUT Proposed Use: Single-family Residential Proposed Zoning: R-4 Surrounding Uses: County Residential to the west, north, and east; SFR and R-4 zoning to the south. Street Buffer(s)and/or Land Use Buffer(s): N/A Open Space/Amenities/Pathways: Size of property does not require minimum open space/amenity standards. However, parkways(tree lined streets)are always welcomed if they are maintained. Access/Stub Streets:Access would have to come from existing stub street abutting property to the south, N. Chopin Ave.This would have to be carried through the site and will be required to have a temporary cul-de-sac or turnaround at its terminus for future connectivity. May require stub-street to the west for future connectivity. It is imperative that this Applicant show how future connectivity COULD work.Staff understands that this may not be how it ends up in the end but helping lay that foundation with this plat is important to the City of Meridian. Waterways/Flood plain/Topography/Hazards: N/A History: N/A Additional Meeting Notes: Due to dead-end street/cul-de-sac,water fire-flow is important—work with Kyle Radek in Public Works to ensure adequate flow is available for emergency purposes. Kyle will also be able to discuss any water quality concerns regarding dead-end water main for this plat. Cul-de-sac diameter must be at least 96-feet to meet Fire code requirements. This property will be required to stub water and sewer mains to the adjacent properties to the north and east.Applicant may be able to obtain a waiver to stub services to property to the east due to public ROW of Dunwoodv Ct.Continue working with neighbor and Public Works for the requirements and process to obtain this waiver. Road extension will be required to be public local road;work with ACHD on required ROW dimensions. Addressing will be extended along N. Chopin Avenue for this development. Be aware that any plat layout recommended for approval by Staff is not guaranteed to be the final product. Public hearings and any neighbor input may require redesign through the public hearing process.This is lust a cautionary note. If any redesign of the plat occurs, please send those changes to myself prior to submitting application (Joe Dodson, idodson(@meridiancity.org) Note:A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)will be required by ACHD for large commercial projects and any residential development with over 100 units. To avoid unnecessary delays&expedite the hearing process, applicants are encouraged to submit the TIS to ACHD prior to submitting their application to the City. Not having ACHD comments andlor conditions on large projects may delay hearing(s)at the City. Please contact Mindy Wallace at 387- 6178 or Christy Little at 387-6144 at ACHD for information in regard to a TIS,conditions,impact fees and process. Other Agencies/Departments to Contact: ❑ Ada County Highway Dist. (ACHD) ❑ Settler's Irrigation District ❑ Parks Department,Kim Warren ❑ Idaho Transportation Dept.(ITD) ❑ Police Department ❑ Other: ❑ Republic Services ❑ Fire Department ❑ Central District Health Department ® Public Works Department—potential utility waiver ❑ Nampa Meridian Irrigation Dist.(NMID) ❑ Building Department 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 ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment—Map ❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Vacation ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment—Text ® Preliminary Plat ❑ Variance ❑ 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 for a 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-5D.3(except for UDC text amendments, Comp Plan text amendments, and vacations). The information provided during this meeting is based on current UDC requirements and the Comprehensive Plan.Any subsequent changes to the UDC andlor Comp Plan may affect your submittal andlor application. This pre-application meeting shall be valid for four(4)months. CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-APPLICATION MEETING NOTES Project/Subdivision Name:Dunwoody/Vienna Woods Sub Pre-App Date: 12/7/2020 Staff: Joe Dodson, Bill Parsons, Joe B. Applicant(s)/Contact(s): Michael Miller, Pat Tealey, Ben Sample Location: R1966962602(Lot 26, Block 1 in Dunwoodv Sub.) Size of Property: 2.88 Comprehensive Plan FLUM Designation: Low Density Residential (no more than 3 du/ac) Existing Use:VacanVAg Existing Zoning: RUT Proposed Use: Single-family Residential Proposed Zoning: R-4 Surrounding Uses: County Residential to the west, north, and east; SFR and R-4 zoning to the south. Street Buffer(s)and/or Land Use Buffer(s): N/A Open Space/Amenities/Pathways: Size of property does not require minimum open space/amenity standards. However, parkways(tree lined streets)are always welcomed if they are maintained. Access/Stub Streets:Access would have to come from existing stub street abutting property to the south, N. Chopin Ave.This would have to be carried through the site and will be required to have a temporary cul-de-sac/turnaround at its terminus for future connectivity. It is imperative that this Applicant show how future connectivity COULD work. Staff understands that this may not be how it ends up in the end but helping lay that foundation with this plat is important to the City of Meridian. Waterways/Flood plain/Topography/Hazards: N/A History: N/A Additional Meeting Notes: Due to dead-end street/cul-de-sac,water fire-flow is important—work with Kyle Radek in Public Works to ensure adequate flow is available for emergency purposes. Kyle will also be able to discuss any water quality concerns regarding dead-end water main for this plat. This property will be required to stub water and sewer mains to the adjacent properties to the north and east.Applicant may be able to obtain a waiver to stub services to property to the east due to public ROW of Dunwoodv Ct.Continue working with neighbor and Public Works for the requirements and process to obtain this waiver. Road extension will be required to be public local road;work with ACHD on required ROW dimensions. Addressing will be extended along N. Chopin Avenue for this development. Be aware that any plat layout recommended for approval by Staff is not guaranteed to be the final product. Public hearings and any neighbor input may require redesign through the public hearing process. Issues with the existing HOA are considered civil issues but these can spill into the public hearing process. Staff recommends you outline within your Narrative the steps you have taken thus far to mitigate these issues;there is no guarantee that these civil issues could not derail the project.These are cautionary notes. If any redesign of the plat occurs, please send those changes to myself prior to submitting application (Joe Dodson, Idodson c( me ridiancity.org) Note:A Traffic Impact Study(TIS)will be required by ACHD for large commercial projects and any residential development with over 100 units. To avoid unnecessary delays&expedite the hearing process, applicants are encouraged to submit the TIS to ACHD prior to submitting their application to the City. Not having ACHD comments andlor conditions on large projects may delay hearing(s)at the City. Please contact Mindy Wallace at 387- 6178 or Christy Little at 387-6144 at ACHD for information in regard to a TIS, conditions,impact fees and process. Other Agencies/Departments to Contact: ❑ Ada County Highway Dist. (ACHD) ❑ Settler's Irrigation District ❑ Parks Department,Kim Warren ❑ Idaho Transportation Dept.(ITD) ❑ Police Department ❑ Other: ❑ Republic Services ❑ Fire Department ❑ Central District Health Department ® Public Works Department—potential utility waiver ❑ Nampa Meridian Irrigation Dist.(NMID) ❑ Building Department 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 ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment—Map ❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Vacation ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment—Text ® Preliminary Plat ❑ Variance ❑ 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 for a 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-5D.3(except for UDC text amendments, Comp Plan text amendments, and vacations). The information provided during this meeting is based on current UDC requirements and the Comprehensive Plan.Any subsequent changes to the UDC andlor Comp Plan may affect your submittal andlor application. This pre-application meeting shall be valid for four(4)months. C�/WERIDIAN -- LAND DEVELOPMENT MEETING NOTES Land Development Staff: Amanda McNutt Date: 8/20/2020 Project Name and Location: Dunwoody/R1966962602 Is sanitary sewer available? Yes: X❑ No: ❑ Notes: Stub for sewer is available on the South property boundary Is domestic water available? Yes: X❑ No: ❑ Notes: Stub for water is available on the South property boundary Is the project within 500 feet No Is this a commercial No of a re-use main? project? If both reuse questions are"yes' provide the following information: Building use(manufacturer, carwash, etc.), hours of operation, approximate business water usage and irrigable landscape area: Floodplain or other hazards? Yes: ❑ No: ❑X Notes: No known flood zone or other hazards. Irrigation District: Settlers Irrigation District Notes: Irrigation must be provided by surface water first, when available. City water or well can be used as a backup source for shoulder season. Public streetlights required? Yes: X❑ No: ❑ Notes: Public roads will require new streetlights Additional Meeting Notes: Water and sewer will be required to be stubbed North and the East per the City's "to and through" requirement. 18:20:31 From Susan S. Susan Szuch 18:20:42 From Susan S. 5780 N. Locust Grove Rd 18:22: 18 From Michael Miller Lou Ann Dahl 18:22:28 From Michael Miller 1840 E Handel 18:25:30 From Lacey Rammell—O'Brien : Lacey Rammell—O'Brien for Dale O'Brien and Susan Rammell, 5690 N. Locust Grove Rd 18:27:49 From michellephillips Robert and Michelle Phillips 18:28:30 From michellephillips Robert and Michelle Phillips 5576 N. Chopin Ave. Meridian Id 83646 18:30: 14 From Jeff Wilding to Michael Miller (Privately) Jeff Wilding — 1842 E. Dunwoody Ct 18:31:07 From marissaprice to Michael Miller (Privately) Did Jeff sign in? 18:32: 18 From Monte Moore Monte Moore, 1921 E Dunwoody Ct. Meridian, ID 83646 18:32:23 From Mona Tippets Mona Tippets 18:32:30 From Mona Tippets 1938 E Dunwoody Ct. 18:32:40 From Mona Tippets Meridian 83646 18:32:55 From Tucker Johnson to Michael Miller (Privately) : Tucker Johnson 18:42:29 From marissaprice to Michael Miller (Privately) Can you maybe address density issues per Meridian? 18:42:50 From marissaprice to Michael Miller (Privately) If you think that is helpful. 18:46:02 From marissaprice to Michael Miller (Privately) Also — we have some late additions — maybe remind everyone to sign in? 18:55: 15 From marissaprice to Michael Miller (Privately) : You are awesome, Brother. Thanks for being calm and respectful and helpful! 19:03:57 From Calvin Fillmore : 1775 e Dunwoody court Calvin Fillmore 19:07:42 From marissaprice to Michael Miller (Privately) kEEWA IS DICK! 19:08:02 From marissaprice to Michael Miller (Privately) as in Keewatin, MN 19: 12:30 From marissaprice to Michael Miller (Privately) Invite Monty to discuss his development plans? 19:29:50 From marissaprice to Michael Miller (Privately) Nicely done, Michael! 19:30: 11 From dalehope : Dale and Lonnie Hope, 1985 e Dunwoody ct Terre Taylor From: Sub Name Mail <subnamernail@adacountyJd.gov> Sent: Friday, December 4, 2020 10:47 AM To: Terri Taylor Cc: Pat Tealey Subject: RE:Ambles Run Subdivision Name Reservation December 4,2020 Pat Tealey,Tealeys Land Surveying Terri Taylor,Tealeys Land Surveying RE:Subdivision Name Reservation: AMBLES RUN SUBDIVISION Restriction: Please note that the current policy does not allow diacritical marks,so the plat name must be submitted As "Ambles Run", instead of"Amble's Run". At your request, I will reserve the name Ambles Run 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 project as long as it is in the approval process unless the project is terminated by the client,the jurisdiction or the conditions of approval have not been met, in which case the name can be re-used by someone else. Sincerely, Glen Smallwood ' Surveying Technician Ada County Development Services 200 W. Front St.,Boise, ID 83702 (208)287-7926 office (208)287-7909 fax From:Terri Taylor rttaylor@tealeys.ccm> Sent:Wednesday, December 2, 2020 12:16 PM To:Sub Name Mail<subnamemail@adacounty.id.gov> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Dunwoody/Vienna Woods Subdivision-44743 CAUTION:This email originated from outside Ada County email servers. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.Verify the sender by mouse-hovering over their display name in order to see the sender's full email address and confirm it is not suspicious. If you are unsure an email is safe,please report the email by using the'Phish Alert'button in Outlook. Hello, We are wanting to request a subdivision name for our Client, Michael Miller with HomeFound Group LLC. Located at Dunwoody/Vienna Woods Subdivision No.2. SW%of Section 29,T4N, R1E. Lot 26, Block 1. 1 Homefound Group Mail -Project Plan In Meridian 12/16/20, 2:31 PM ma i l Michael Miller<michael@homefoundgroup.com> Project Plan In Meridian PlanningReview <PlanningReview@achdidaho.org> Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 2:19 PM To: Michael Miller<michael@homefoundgroup.com> Michael, A traffic impact study is not required for this application. Mindy Mindy Wallace, AICP Planning Review Supervisor Ada County Highway District 208-387-6178 ACHD Development Services is open for business at our new location at 1301 N. Orchard Street, Suite 200 in the CSC building. Parking and building entrance are located on west side of building. From: Michael Miller<michael@homefoundgroup.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 1:07 PM To: PlanningReview <PlanningReview@achdidaho.org> Subject: Project Plan In Meridian [THIS EMAIL ORIGINATED EXTERNALLY. PLEASE USE CAUTION WHEN OPENING ATTACHMENTS OR LINKS INSIDE THIS EMAIL.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O?ik=ca3befOfl7&view=pt&search=al...d=msg-f%3A1686271269152931117&simpl=msg-f%3A1686271269152931117 Page 1 of 2 MM \ .. . 06 '. 0 AMBLES RUN SUBDIVISION .......,. .....:m..Ill,....,;..�: 0 ..:�. .�.. ...1... \ \" \ .. .. .. .""""""""""""""". ............. :, n i...:::::::............:.: J "I ...»:::Si' ��:. \. :3II:EFFe.. ...31EF`i\\`: , qy.::€:i:Eui::::::.``�::55:::5:::::::::E::::::::::::.::"":::::::......... ....3 ,.... \.\\ \.... \ \ 11 i�lllllll "I ........ :,s%°.E;FI 55 �' .\:::�z,"5""........€....:"I "I .... ..: ::: "....., \\\\\5v.., \ �\ \.. \ \�. '. (10 9: :3:55 : .,s=a i:,.,i..i\.."""."""""" ,TT:"""." .... \..::....\\ :<<i:::.:::• \... \:m x w �j:_ i... ...I..\::::: •::<:::.:::. .:: :. .\.... .\IFS:; \...\......... '\ \. Q 1\.; .i. . ...i \.. ,E\. \....... \.. 20 _,, ,5: :_M,i,ii \.\�.:.,:: ::::3:: .. .%::: \. :. \ a:I �€�. : (�; �i�,�l.\\\.:::::\:::::,,gam;:;s::::s;;;s:sa::;: ;:i........:::. E \\ �\�:-::::::: :3. I � �.; G \ '' \ sue:<=; :::...... ::: ........... \ IL 4 ft qcz PREI IMINARY PLAT -, �­l \ 0 it ......... \.............\\ \. \, \\\ �\ \\........ 1...1....�.:. 111111.1-1-1.1-111111 MMM I'll, 11 ol ........ \ NO\ 1. \ �' ...................................................\ \\:::::: \\\::. \\ �: \........ .......................� \).. ....,: .f..F .i.s \� .........�..\. ::::::: F::::::::F.:.\ \\.......\...:. ....\\::.....:::.\. FF� ». �3..•••.. .. E ... .\ E k:s<::::: \\\\... \\\ .. , a ..: : :::;;::::�::: :::\;:::.. \.. \\\. \: M \ :: M ; \o\\\. \��\. \ \ A PORTION OF LOT 26 BLOCK 1 DUNWOODY SUBDIVISION \ ..... � _ \ �� \ = z :::: \ :. \ �,:o \ try `) L \\\,•:::.::::<::::::::::::::::«:::: \\. \., « . \\ \ \. \ . . \ �::.. 555 3 \ \.... \...:: :: .::,:::»\ �...... :::::::::::::::::: m \..., 1� 1\.. \\ ..............m..............._. \. \ : .............. \\ \ ....... ........... \ \ II,= � \\ �,, m \\`. \, µ......I.."."a ;:::.::..<:::. g u ..s s::'S\\ Vie;;:;.... 3 ::•: ".,. .\ .\\ \ll� Vi ­��;, IN TILE NW 1/4 OF SEC. 29, T4N RlE �_ \�� � ; \ \ _ wo r;. . . W � . . .... \3.. ::: \ \\\ c \\ \' , " \\,\ \� \\ \�.25, .\........ 5.F 5W �AI I \\�\\\ "I,.. ME RI D IAN I 3 r i 3..:::: ...�:.. .:5::..:.....:.5..:. "5.:::. µ �I .. .. rT�: a .:..::......:.:r:::::. .... /,� \ W ..:.....:........ .......... .. .....n 5 ....................................................................:: . 3 ........ .......... \.. t!1 N ;3:::::: \ .\...: :. .11 h.�. \\ \. . \\ \ \\\�r ;: \\ \.. \\\ \ \\\. - \:::: a I� \ .. M �\z \ \\\a as ... ::::::::::\ \;. �: 11 \: \: \ \:\.... M,x 2 \\\\ \\:. NOTES �,,,;,\, \\ r... €.". r; r d E`:::gi tEsI"s!I"s,::\ %::::F:: f:-'::ii::5< ,i':ie:Rv \\ 333:}913?133 i'::fi, z' ? �:.�\ x`° ?i \ `i :�\.��,.:. '�l �.. .. i30..""<:;s,;,,•...E�.:.:..s ss' ,. ..,,3 5 .....:...I:. .. ..:. .., :..:::"sE '..:s. "" �..�" �• 5RE SUAAAIARY. 3 . . \;; \:€ .i`Q � ' «\ =:,. . \ \\\\ \ \.. \\. 1. CURRENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION: RUT THE PROPOSED ZONING IS R-2 LOW \, ::::::: ` DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AFTER ANNEXATION. mm' \\, \� \� \ \ \ \\\�•" \ - TOTAL ACREAGE = 2.88 AC `4NM\ .. .... �\\\\`... \� \ �` `:: R s..., """.."".P TOTAL LOTS - 6 \; l :\::; ;.\ € p 2. SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM WILL INTERCONNECT WITH THE CITY SEWER SYSTEM ON N. \\ ' . €,.,. .;::\ \\ ? G m_ CHDPIN AVE. BUILDABLE LOTS 6 \.. g ( sf :.: \ \•• ,. �.. 6 .11. , \. F l:€€: \ �."' \ I a u 0' P _IC RIGHT OF WAY ,. \\\ .. \ \ "` -°(,:.' GROSS DENSITY = 2.08 DU AC a;:::\, \:::;;.:\\ \ .gym. \.: ::\ :: \ \ . \\\\ \ 49 -c . ; e \ \ \ .\\\\z\...\ �\ \. tt�� T SYSTEM WILL INTERCONNECT WITH THE CITY WATER MAIN IN N. CHOPIN AVE. 6.D :::: \ �:::::\ �\\\\\\ \\\. \� \ \\ ., \... .. Z 3 WATER R 6.O TO BE DEDICATED \\::\: \\ \ � . \\\.: _: �< \.;;;::: \.;,` NET DENSITY - 2.49 DU AC a..:,::. \ \\\\ \::\ \\ :.., "`::- ,:.,? :€\:,\,... <::�,u\ .::. \ I` {u I \..... \\ \ :::::({. :\. \.a... 3 . ®: +...,3i.i...\\\....fit:. \\.'.` \..... \\\ \ t- \ .. .... \ 4. IRRIGATION WATER WILL BE SUPPLIED BY SETTLERS IRRIGATION AND DISTRIBUTED VIA RIGHT OF WAY AREA = 20,577 SQFT. �;::,\\ \ \ ': \: .." € ""3 ::.\\ \\\ \: \ \ \ .\ \ \\\\ A PRIVATE WET-WELL PUMP STATION. _ .�.\\:,. \:::\.. .\\\\.-.. �::::::: €:«:«: €< \ �\._.. \\ \: . ;: ..,\\ .\\ \\s,;. 36.0 BACK TO BACK 8.O 4.0 \ .E...\...\. ........ .�t. 55.x 3... "E... \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\��\\. �a E CURRENT ZONING RUT 4A 8.D { ) M �Y , 5. ALL LOTS HAVE A 5 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE SIDES, A 10 FOOT UTILITY PROPOSED ZONING = R-2 d NP .04 EASEMENT IN THE REAR, A 10 FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT IN THE FRONT AND A 12' 18'O' 18'0� VICINITY W_ _t r.LA UTILITY EASEMENT ON THE BOUNDARY. wm E SCALE: 1 =500 i m 6. ALL BUILDABLE LOTS ARE SUBJECT TO SETBACK REQUIREMENTS PER THE CITY OF � 9 o a o � $ MERIDIAN CODE. V I 2.04% 1.75% � 1.75% 2.0090 c 7. THERE ARE NO TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES REQUIRED BY ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY t- -----�- d N DISTRICT. m r. . ROLLED 8. THIS PROJECT IS IN A ZONE X (MINIMAL FLOOD HAZARD) PER FIRM PANEL Z�" HOT PLANT MIX ASPHALT AND GUTTERS LINETYPES: SYMBOLS: Z 0 N 16001CO161J EFFECTIVE 06/19/2020. " .......I...................___" s" m 14" PIT RUN '- 4 CRUSHED s. MINIMUM HOME SIZE IS 2,nnD SQUARE FEET. AGGREGATE BASE - -- : IXISTING CURB & GUTTER EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE n ...................�.__._.__ _......._...._.._........................................................................-.,........-....-..-............-.-....,.............._......._................m TYP{CAL STREET_SECTION 71 CONSTRU CT CURB & GUTTER INSTALL SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE . .......................I........._w..w.._._�..�........_........__,...__..............................._ _-....._._ _.............................. ................ -- --- IX15TING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING GRAVITY IRRIGATION n .........................�.� ..._V_.. _._,__......_".............I',"", ..........�..m.........................�..�.. �..�.... , -, ...."- _._.-.. a x T_ INSTALL SANITARY SEWER MAIN G f INSTALL GRAVITY IRRIGATION a v _....._.................m...__..__. m..._ ;.................�..�....�....................................�.......................-,..-...- € z i INSTALL SEWER SERVICE EXISTING VALVE -°, - -;z ': IXISTING STORM DRAIN ® i INSTALL WATER VALVE a ., . .........................................................................................�..�.__. .."._....._- .�.-__-,-_M.._.�.._......__,",-.�..�__......l... _..._... _._.m /////�/ji _ I SD € INSTALL STORM DRAIN MAIN H INSTALL IRRIGATION VALVE Z I �, i 10 DUNWOODY sue ;.. � 1 I ........................I.......___. _. ..m......_...................._...................... .........."..- Z J { MM W I ... y 1 BOOK 58 PAGE 5.482 EXISTING WATER MAIN EXISTING WATER METER ,� ro ; , - _ -__ -....... ............... ............................................................................_........__"----".._....................... . Y ,! 1 W INSTALL WATER MAIN:.. m N. � INSTALL WATER METER op 0 INSTALL TEMPORARY BLOW OFF \ \,.-` ; I '� J/T ; APPROXIMATE JOINT TRENCH EXISTING BLOW-OFF VALVE I " AND GATE VALVE FOR ,a i ---•....................._..................................................................................,._.__�.�._-.-.....�_".__.."_..."- ..__.._.... .................................................................. ...................__......_..... J 1 CONSTRUCT 8 SEWER FUTURE EX7,ENSI41s#,-- -"•--. ,.".. \A"" I -..-.-.........-.... . EXISTING PRESSURE IRRI. INSTALL BLOW-OFF VALVE W W ,,: \ ❑ STUBTO NORTH. I .................................__._............__.................. ...........................__..,-,".,""......... ..... ...............................................................� ----........... a 1 CAP AND MARK \. _..z 1: \ J i "` PI EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT INSTALL PRESSURE IRRI. MAIN I �� ITO SURFACE \`\... __._......................_....................................... _... .................. _. ................._..... 3m - - -- - L- -- -- ' - -- - - - I= --, - -- - - -- -- -S89?3r3&"W -37". -- �._._._.�.__ _ _____. ................... .. EXISTING GRAVITY IRRIGAT1dN INSTALL FIRE HYDRANT - -- -- - - - - - - - - _ ,- m._ .................................................... y y m 0..7 `.� -� ---- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- -- - -- - -- - - - - _ _ _......................... ...._ _ __....................... a - - _ _ -- - --- - - - - - - - - - r J �r - - - - - - - _18.34 18.7�--- - - - - - ---- - --i ; >� 4Y _.. m_ _...........................�_...-....-......-..-....-........-.--....l, . .. ..................................................................m....._...�...�........_............................... 0 IRR INSTALL GRAVTTI' IRRI MAIN �' STORM WATER FLdW .. r.... -r 1 I I 1 I LOT LINE € INSTALL STREET LIGHT PER CITY STDCL 1 1 / o 1 a\ : 1 -..�....._-...____-__..w......._................... .................................................. _...................._....�.-"_._.."_m.�.�..�."�...�....-.�..__"................._.._.�...�..______.._._ m m " :'` ` .' '` -• -- BOUNDARY/PHASE LINE EXISTING IRRIGATION PUMP--OUT rz I 111" �S n _........._.................... _................................................. I ........-.....................-...-.....................................-. w :. € I n, r +2� I .. "' r 1 m.._..._ _......................... CENTER LINE C}P ........ = INSTALL IRRIGATION PUMP-OUT...._. " 4 I `: I _ ... ._ II I _.. t EASEMENT LINE EXISTING CATCH BASIN INLET 1 4 :... I _._ ._.... m. .. _._............._....._................ _.._._ ._. _..................._.............-........................m..m_ c ' - m 3 .. s -:, 1 L14.1' ! 16365 SF I ".."'.z. € mr I 1927 SF _...._......_...- _ _......._..................._............................ Q 38 `'F."I � s I ,�� �. � �� EXISTING CONTOUR � CONSTRUCT CATCH BASIN INLET 1 1 0.37 I ... . m_. 12.0' . ...__ _. . .... .... ....... . ...i _..� I \ I 2550, FINISH GRADE CONTOUR ( CONSTRUCT PEDESTIAN RAMP 1 1 _.. __.....m..._. ................................................... ;.._-�....-...-.�._..-.....---......---- .- -.. -.. -..- ..- ...................__.._m� � as z.1 / 1 ; `�, ION TEST ....� .... -__._____.._-_ 1 _.. _"____ __-______. _..._....... '111111-1. Q.63' EXISTING EDGE OF AVEMENT TEST HOLE I 1..1D H- Nr L - - - --- - - -- 1 .03' - - ---- - - - _ - - J u y ................................ ::: .. EXISTING OVERHEAD POWERS TEST HOLE 2 w W [/3 C Q1 co to . _._.........._._....__ a _. m_ _.. _._ ......................... - { �' EXISTING FIBER OPTICS m INSTALL STOP SIGN J CMp OD �..:: J ............................................. . ... m I I 7. 11 + I l% _................ EXISTING TELEPHONE.m INSTALL'STREET..SIGN...-.- _- _., G Uj r � � ........................... ra _............ _ ... _...._...................;..................................._.. Z a v p 11 I I 10 I _... \.................................... Ex INSTALL 2-PARTY MAILBOX Q Z :�: 1 I PROI'OSEn SEEPAGE 3 I I r x EXISTING GAS LINE NN 3 = co cf._ W _. _....... .............................. _... _..........._.......-.-....... _ ._ m _.. ....................................................................................--.........-.....-....................__.�......-.__ ..-.-......_ UNpLATTED F I I TRENCH I f I I " I INSTALL UNDERGROUND POWER W ❑ V C D Z 1-- j I n 20 8O U��' EXISTING TREE.......... M m D II I I a _._.._.......... .............................__ ................. cf) g r- . I �,'�__, I" 10 40 120 ""° : TOP OF BANK 1 � w _... _._.__.-.0.................................__...... _._.....__. _ m_ EXISTING UTILITY POLE W ................ n i 8388 , . J \. *,, I 17923 5F ....m I ': ;:.::: SCALE: = 40 I so ' T0P OF SLOPE EXISTING UTILITY POLE W/ GUY WIRE 0 I CL �342 _...._......................_..".............................................. 1 .41 �.. . a I Lm M3 _.............- 36.0' I 1 € .. .............. TOE OF SLOPE enx o I I ( . . 2 1 . v 1 . .: EXISTING ELECTRICAL I 1 N \ ` _......._.. .... '.. z I I.: I a BLOCK 1 I EXISTING TELEPHONE BOX ER EDGE OF ROAD BLOCK 2 RIGHT OF WAY L - - I \ EG EDGE OF GRAVEL L - - ----- _ r - - _ - - ---- - - - _ - �- 'sr E I ,f �C.d. ...INSTALL CLEAN OUT � I .�...____�_....� m-.m..._.._."" _.................................................. 162.43 •"\ SC SAW CUT LINE ABBREVIATIONS: - - ------ -- -- - - g ..._ _ _.._.._..................... __ I Q \. .. . II .I 3 :..• I 1 ' { ,: € SWALE FLOW LIN.IE BRG ; BEARING MJ i MECHANICAL JOINT I 8" SEWER MAIN Z cr. 8 SEWER MAIN Y W 1 _...... _...................... ......................._.....___ .. FACE J F a I 1 1 .::'...:x:..........•. : CENTER LINE NF € NEAR I I D I 18408 SF 1 r = d.42 „\ \,\ I CUB CLE�IR............... ..._................. ..OP ....OVERHEAD....PDWER. ...... 2 Cf) 0 I I I - I I I � :. ><..... :.\\<: :: _............................................... ........ ....__....._.............. ..1 DUNWOODY SU6 EG 1 EDGE OF GRAVEL DPP.: OPPOSITE Q H - " EXISTING IRRIGATION DITCH `: I I I _ 1 i' .................. \ i . 17915 SF =s�r BpOK 58 PAGE B2 1 I T4 BE TILED 5 4 P:.,.. 1 EL , ELEVATION I /L PROPERTY LINE � � 0.41 I _........�..�.�___...... Q N � ..:....:... I PROPOSED WET-WELL••. I I EP I EDGE OF PAVEMENT PC ' POINT OF CURVE p W RJ,J ...., %P,UMir,.STATION....%,"' 1 _�............................................................ _ _..-...... LU o w i .....I............................... - ...... • ......... .. -,,... ,,,,. ...-...,.. ...-.............-_ .._. .--..--'.',',,,,,,,::::::m..""""""m.,,...�......��:,:... .-._- ... ._ SHED FLOOR PRESSURE IRRIGATION ❑ m_ �................ FF FINISHED PI ,...... _.............. _ .. w l _ _.. w....__ U3 % -�.. n -r. .....'--..... ................ _..... ...... : .... m.... ::` ­11 . ..: \... # I\.. ... . ............. ,, , r....... . I'll �.. . \. N89 35 30 E fifi4.fi8 ter- y - - -- Bl�I 28 . ......:.... .- -� € SHED GRADE POINT OF TANG#MNT . _ T....... FG FINISHED PT R. - _................. _...._......_....................... 1 rf C 4F 5EC11 11 ..........,............... 11 ..._..V._._-.....-. ............................................................_..._ - -_._..._-........................ m ..:.:.... . . ......... s m m _ _..�; m..__...._....... .. _. ........ . LOW LINE SANITARY SEWER \: FL F 5 \ \.. .. m1. :.... ,' ­11 ;,. E: � STORM DRAIN €: . . .:.. ? E € ................ : W D EXISTING C NNET...;TO EX FINISHEDSD CONNECT TO EXISTING B I n I ME LATCH EXISTING STA. STATEpN ti I 8" SEWER MAIN .<:. ..';: S WRTE __.... m .m_.m....._ _. r .......,........ : Q z N \ . CURB ............1, Z < \.: . i._ 1 G B GRADE BREAI{ TBC ~TOP BACKZ m "s.. ` <Z vs ! ., `'` 4 IRR GRAVITY IRRIGATION TEL TELEPHONE UTILITY eOdK Ba PAGE 77 LLJ ......................................... _..................m._ [V is ' � ENNA WOODS SUB. Nt?. . ::.. .::w .... ... .. , . i :: U \ iNV. INVERT TYP.I TYPICAL � Q. �, . , . . ._ € Z \ _a �y ❑ €:. RT s_ €: ' `< RIG ;- ::,.:..s: z i g °;%z v, HT W WATER r -ITI L ..................I......_..._........_.___-- .-._-.".."-_......-._ _,-..._-.._�....-..................-.......................................-___ O SITE MAP o cliSCALE: 1" 5D' THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LEAVITT & ASSOCIATES LT I �� 2 m _. ._-....�._.................................................. ..............;...................... ENGINEERS, INC AND THE DESIGN AND IDEAS WITHIN ARE NOT BEGIN VERTICAL END VERTICAL SCALE: Sheet Number: .5 TO BE USED IN WHOLE OR PART WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT 6YC5...z..CURVE STATION EVCSz CURVE STATION If; . 9 OF LEAVITT & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. BEGIN VERTICAL END VERTICAL '� 40 BVCE ELEVATION EVCE� CURVE ELEVATION - PLANT SCHEDULE LANDSCAPE LEGEND QTY KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE NOTES DECIDUOUS SHADE TREES ° , PLANTS TO BE INSTALLED M 6 AR Acer rubrum'Frank Jr.' Redpointe Maple 2"CAL.B&B Class II-45'H x 35'W 6 GB Ginkgo biloba'Autumn Gold' Autumn Gold Ginkgo 2"CAL.B&B Class II-50'H x 35'W 12 TIC Tilia cordata Little-Leaf Linden 2"CAL.B&B Class II-50'H x 35'W ORNAMENTAL TREES - - PROPERTY LINE(VERIFY) 7 AG Amelanchier x grandiflora'Autumn Brilliance' Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry 2"CAL.B&B Class I-25'H x 25'W 6 PC Prunus cerasifera'Thundercloud' Thundercloud Plum 2"CAL.B&B Class I-20'H x 20'W 2 QUANTITY FQC PLANT IDENTIFICATION KEY CONIFEROUS TREES FQC1 5 PP Picea pungens'Glauca' Colorado Blue Spruce 6-T HGT. 30'H x 20'W MAINTAINED LAWN AREAS L a 8 PV Pinus flexilis'Vanderwolfs Pyramid' Vanderwolfs Pyramid Limber Pine 6-7'HGT. 25 H x 15 W i. SHRUBS/PERENNIALS/ORNAMENTAL GRASSES 59 EP Echinacea purpurea Purple Coneflower #1 3'H x Z W 23 JS Juniperus horizontalis'Bar Harbor' Bar Harbor Creeping Juniper #1 V H x 6'W 1 �._ _ 60 PA Pennisetum alopecuroides'Hameln' Dwarf Fountain Grass #1 S H x 3'W BARK MULCH AT 3"DEPTH I I ° OVER TOPSOIL 43 RA Rhus aromatica'Gro-Low' Gro-Low Sumac #5 2'H x 8'W BLOCK 1z"] //� K i I DUNWOODY SUBDIVISION i O SHED ALLOUT NUMBERS CULTIVATED FIELD I I i O I j I REFER TONUMBERED 1 ` LOT 27 CALLOUT NOTES # NOTES BELOW o � I 1. RETAIN AND PROTECT EXISTING ROAD AND UTILITY 1 1 IMPROVEMENTS 1 I i i ° I I I j 2. RETAIN AND PROTECT EXISTING FENCING 1 I ' LOT 28 I B ° 1"x6"CEDAR BOARD 3. PROPOSED 6'WOOD FENCING I EXISTING 10 4. PROPOSED LANDSCAPE BERM PUBLIC UTILITIES, DRAINAGE I i 1 ° I I rr _ - AND IRRIGATION EASEMENT i i 5. RETAIN AND PROTECT EXISTING IRRIGATION STRUCTURE 3 S ' 89`35'30" W 37V 1' $ 3 1 ° I I I ,fi B 6. RETAIN AND PROTECT EXISTING TREE 1 L----- -- ----- -- --- i ----- — ---- ---------------- ---- - —� L L______j--------- 2"x4"CEDAR TOP RAIL 7. PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ———————————————— 1 9 ---- - ----------------------------------------- I PI PI PI PI PI PI '' PI PI '�' PI PI PI PI PI P —————— ———————————————— E TREATED 8. PROPOSED PRESSURE IRRIGATION DISTRIBUTION —— CEDAR PRESSOR — --- ------------------ — ;':�.�.� ———————————————————— — � ———— r SECTION A—A' CEDAR POST MAIN 4 PROPOSED GRAVITY IRRIGATION a l II. ° q PROJECT INFORMATION I I jal I ° I N LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ° I 1 2"x6"x8'CAP RAIL H _ I I III I I a - I TOTAL PROPERTY SIZE= 125,452.8 S.F.-2.88 ACRES a l I I °I I ° ;I PROPOSED ZONING DISTRICT= R4 TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES:50 $ I //� 1/2"APART TOTAL BOARD SPACE TOTAL NUMBER OF TREE SPECIES:7 ; 5 SPECIES REQUIRED 1 I 4 • I ° I I / o LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS: ° 7 _' • ° a ° I 2"x4"CEDAR TOP RAIL SET 12" BELOW TOP OF POST WEST BOUNDARY( 31 L.F.) NO REQUIREMENTS25 FT.WIDTH BUFFER PROVIDED 1 +I I � _ �_ 1 (0 FT. LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIRED) PROVIDED TREES- 16 U, a i ;::• ^'.: I I I % PROVIDED SHRUBS/PERENNIALS-93 I I I I I I ° 1 % W j NORTH BOUNDARY I I I NO REQUIREMENTS FL .'• � 1=III=1' ° I - r 2"x4"CEDAR BOTTOM RAIL SET 12" �\U : . I I 1 =1I—III - EAST BOUNDARY(331 L.F.) _ =III=1 ABOVE FINISH GRADE % H o =III=11I -I11- NO REQUIREMENTS \� I 10� I II / / I =1 = 25 FT.WIDTH BUFFER PROVIDED x N -III a SET FINISH GRADE AS SPECIFIED a 1 I a X I I" / w / =1\=1 \1= (0 FT. LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIRED) • I -III -I 4"x4"PRESSURE TREATED CEDAR POST, PROVIDED TREES- 16 LOT 25 11-1 SET 8'-0"APART O.C. PROVIDED SHRUBS/PERENNIALS-92 LW 0 0IIII F p I I I+ I Ia O I I ELEVATION III--1 I I— I CONCRETE FOOTING AS SPECIFIED SOUTH BOUNDARY - -1 III „I NO REQUIREMENTS C�J / I I I L. I Q a I I x / 4"4" 4" 6"AGGREGATE BASE J COMPACTED SUBGRADE ROAD FRONTAGE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS /�//�//�!/ (331 L.F. EA.SIDE OF ROADWAY) Z . :. C I , i L.. 4 • I I i Ia — M x i I NOTE. 1 CLASS 11 TREE PER 35 L.F. C a {J BLOCK 2 �3�' I ° 1. REFER TO PLAN FOR FENCE LOCATION. REQUIRED TREES 18 BLOCK 1 GJ I 2. PANELS OF FENCE TO ALTERNATE SIDES AT EVERY POST. SEE SECTION A PROVIDED TREES 18 U, ' I •4q 6 ° 1 : . : CEDAR FENCE E O Scale: 1/2"= V 0„ EXISTING 10' PUBLIC UTILITIES, DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION EASEMENT 7. 00 U I /• : - > \1 ` + ° I / 1 - � 4. "�%`��vi NO. REVISION 1 I �f` / /'. ` :.`��:� REVISION/ISSUE DATE ._- N 1 I I I ° I000111100 1 � o P° � ��� Liq . `Y, -TOF+ 1 ° 811 5 SHA° BLOCK 1 o10 - o -0 IO Know whaCs R7e/OW. 01 4 ❑ C 1 I I • • I a 1 1 1yw-��^' •� > a \� o CALL 2 BUSINESS DAYS u t^ ❑ J ❑ IN ADVANCE BEFORE a o f 1 ' r'.� �h o 0 I I I . '. I 1 I DUNWOODY SUBDIVISION � �, , may; �� �—r � a, o� V � w ot��.�y a V 00 MARKING OF of I I P ��ll VAC`Tj'' C hw r�• O C� o y l 1 5 � n1 ,��nY�ifl— r_ t�ED4 �o YOU DIG,GRADE,OR 3 1 \ I((��d EXCAVATE FOR THE i z. �, a UNDERGROUND � 6 I a 3 1 \° G,1NDS CA��'o MEMBER UTILITIES 6 C a 1 $ i 1 - i%6, � � •f'y�II l\ �M"'n�' r. 5. °i r °0°aa00000000°° 1 g 5 I 1 �� err, ��� ;� N `�)(��� \ No r N`Nia z d 1 1 ills // 94N, / 1. G w O , PI PI PI PI I PI I PI PI PI PI PI PI r 3wr �-�' 1 0.90' s, a �1j �� ^ N�n�� � FC S $ I IR IR IR o 42.32' IR IR 120 00' 125.00' 41.90' ---- 55_09'------- - --------,--„--------1559.01 ------------------- r �, ; �'tv;p���^:r �� � .----------------- z 1 W 1614.10 "�i yC;� �i Ii,4Sr,= "J " W v M I. I S 89 35 30 89'35 30 E 664.68 PI PI I PI S 89'35 30 W 379.24 A� PI PI PI PI ' PI PI ' S I •I•, '� I 1 o 2� WOOD FENCE w w v 1 TRANSITIONS TO v` /� „- ! ti �` `v 2 1 i 6 i PROVIDE SMOOTH , ` I5 �' � AT PROPERTY o o 1 •.. i NEW AND EXISTING o6 � / r�l.. B I I: I 1 GRADES Yr t3°��' l�i� � LINE PER ti ' Ool . I•. �� �Iv �' r� r� >cr W Z O 25 25 �<:a' � I LOT 1 iti� ; � o zx � a � BLOCK 8 �i PLANS 4 a a RODNEY EVANS PARTNERS a + + + + 0� , •nz- '' i° reand artners.com+208-514-3300+1014 S.La Pointe,Boise,Idaho 83706 of I L. Q �• I I , �- o I I••''..? :'�!'a' I VI E N N A WOODS S U B D. NO. 4 1 25' LANDSCAPE BUFFER PROVIDE 3 Z_ I: '• I SMOOTH LOT 16 LOT 1 7 �;.�:: i• 1 1 TRANSITIONS E ON LOT 1 1 TO EXISTING AMBLES RUN SUBDIVISION 1 •.' �.:"•• = 1 3:1 MAX -III-III-III-III-III-III-III- - 3:1 MAX GRADES V I E N N A ,WOODS S U B D. N 0. 2 L.., , BLOCK 8 1 SLOPE —I I_I I—III—I I_I —III_III—I I_I I—III—I _ SLOPE E. DUNWOODY CT. ' !' ..1• a 1 I—III—III—III—III—III—I I:— I— I I—I 11-1 I I I I —III—III—I -- E ' I '~" ° :1: ' 0 —III—III III —III III III 1 �•'.1.: 1 MERIDIAN, ID ' I III III III _III III III 1 VIENNA WOODS III III A I I II III III III I - "I y BLOCK 5 i I, �? SUBD. NO. 2 I Ili li IIII is II 3' TALL LANDSCAPE BERM -III III III III III = PRELIMINARY PLAT o IIII I I II III I�i � -III III III III III III II I I III III I I II I 5 t' ° �1 I . N I REAR YARD LANDSCAPE BERM I •.r 1 � o .CABLBOX Sca e: H—S LANDSCAPE PLAN CE 10 00F --------------------------------------------- N % - PROJECT SHEET •. 20110 a PRELIMINARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN DATEc� 1 30 0 30 60 90 2/18/20 Ll 0 LL it LL DRAWN BY CHECKED BY L-I SCALE: 1"=30'-0" Q BSS BSS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 AGENCY REVIEW ag U13'-10" T,O.RIDGE • -IO" N�cac F�frcgpc b j�¢8T• a o' ---------.------------------------------- R �.,Qm� yg Lai WINDOW TRII-DEF.SHINGLES BY OWENS CORNING T,O.RIDGE BLACK12 -_.z�aima°off BTNTHETIC UNDERLATMENT aS _o> �s`�'� _ $SEE Ba`a��O8 12 IR � 13 1rII� �1s 70 m II1'-I v6" z LO—PLATE----------- ----- --- -—-—-—-—- IUD'-I 1/6" aLL IOS'-1 I/6" T,O.PLATE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D6_I Vfi" T.O.PLATE $ Z T.O.6UBFLOOR ------ --- T.O.6UBFLOOR 4 � FRONT ELEVATION WHITE BOARD I BATTEN S'S 5/B" 0-0 MILGARD—ANY WINDOW6 12"FAUX COLUMNS acuE. ii..io -=- n BLACK EXT./WHITE INT. T.O.FNDN ON 94 O 3 Q U ELEVATION NOTES. 1.ALL WINDOWS TO BE MILGARD T6CANY ],ALL EXTERIOR DOORS TO BE FIBERGLASS —ME FLOOR PLAN FOR WINDOW SIZES A—LOCATIONS 4,ALL ROOF RIDGE/PEAK HEIGHTS ARE APPROX.AND PER ROOF TRU66 6UPPLIER-AL DRAWING6. 5.ALL ROOF TRUSSES TO NAVE A STANDARD HEEL HEIGHT-BY ROOF TRU65 SUPPLIER :I]6'-IO" ------------------------- T.O.RIDGE z .1 T.O.RIDGE LU 12 121 �1x W /VIL •1VILt a�4m 10S•-I I/S" 10S•-I I/6" T,O.PLATE T,O.PLATE R 'a El 8 O.FNDN T.O.SUBFLOOR REAR ELEVATION - i �E FRONT�BACK ELEVATIONS A2,0 --T.O.RIDGE IYL.3� .------------------------ T.O,PLATE g�3¢�Yma°om zoo Ng�pm<<€' HIM, 12 9 �Y -_ --------__IIII=1 A2 z T,O PLATE ~ ------- - ---------- T..PLATE T.O.PLATE R � z U O loob" __---_ TIE u -- 4 T.O.9UBFLOOR T.O.9UBFLOOR � U LEFT ELEVATION T.o.FNDN O � � ct) 9Q0 u ELEVATION NOTES: I.ALL WINDOW5 TO BE-GARD TUSOANY ].ALL EXTERIOR DOOR6 TO BE MERGLA66 3.SEE FLOOR PLAN FOR WINDOW 51-AND LOCATIONS A.ALL ROOF RIDGE/PEAK HEIGHT.ARE APPROX.AND PER ROOF TRU55 SUPPLIER FINAL DRAWINGS. 5.ALL ROOF TRUBBEB TO HAVE A 6TANDARD HEEL HEIGHT-BY ROOF TRU.6-PLIER z W T.O.RIDGE _.-----------------------i.0.PLATE IJF` 4M 13 W 1ccL IIL` EE v III'J�'------------_ O.PLATE Io9_I I/6- ------------- --- 1-'-I I/w T.O.PLATE- - -T.O.PLATE T.O.9-FLOOR T.o,9UBFLOOR $ ° RIGHT ELEVATION 99'-95/B" J �f�f�E SIDE T,o.FNDN "'e o ELEVATIONS ,42.1 V, W � r G � N0 LL 00 r Z c Q .. 00 N SCALE HORIZONTAL W Q 0 20 80 W zwo D 10 40 120 W i- Cc t- _ � VERTICAL 0I- m 0 2 8 1 4 12 N F p'} HORIZONTAL: 1" = 40' > Z w It 0 ........................._..._...._........_.................._...._....m _. __ . m._____..._..........................._.._.r..._..............................._......_........ ; _......... ._......_................_..... _. _...._ ..__......__........... 1 = 4� _......� _ _ N VERTICAL ui V) N 2616 2616 N p __._._-----------------------------__... _._........._ ... ...................................................... _ __.... ..................................................... ....................................................... ...................................................... ................_.._............................. _ r (L �? . jai _.m............... .. . ...............................�.._...... ..... ._.................................... �� _ � �� co ER v 2612 ' o 000 _ aCD 2612 . _........... {p N CC7 _ �..-.- .. ........................._..._. ...................................................._..... . ............. .......................... a _.._..._.... pq A0 0 ^ � 1g ++LO + CV N a N cal +[Qv N LWz" O r^ C LC]N W I v A I_...................................... ........................ .......................... ................... —--—------t --------------- .......... 7 J � Y E 2608 r PROPS® FlMIiE10 SURFACE 2608 6 ..... ....._.............._. r m m __ mm ____ ____ __ __ .... . ... m �A a -C-4Q �O5 %-0.40% 1.45% .. �_ E j rw v �T 2604 zj j 2604 v _........................._........ ..�.....� ............... _..�._._____.._.... ....................................................... �..�._.. .._ m__m..� ........ ......................... �.__.. _�._.__...�.._........_..... 0 ? EXISTING ROUND LINE n9 C r w _, w �..............`:........................... ....... _..... .. __..... .. __....._ N V) Q xz N CHOPIN AVE LJ;L� � r Q J c� c� c4 co Ln co L0 cA � � E r (D (D (0 LOO CEO to � (b io Z N N N N N N N N N a 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 ya„ CL � �2 Q W y� Z � d t � W J i►s a Lu co ----------- - - - I J d 2608 2608 �m ............. �. ._......_-._...._--- -------- - ...._. .---- ---.......................... -----------........--- ..........................................--- E 2604 2604 EXISTING GROUND LINE ++� _ € OD _....__.....-......-.... __. _........_...._..................................__... ....... CONSTRUCTS" PVC SEINER ❑ _ � W � �p 2600 _ I STUB 43.1 LF ® 0. 0% 2600 € m Q a J G� r - _ CD € € ^ € € � N 00 ...... ............. a n _j W _..-.--...- STRUCT 8" PV I ❑ i2 Q Z W C SEWER - CV _ [f] 2596 MAIN 283+7 LF ® 0 40� 2596 LCw o vo — w €..........................................................................................................................<............................................. _._ m__ -�--. .................._......... _..................... _......._............._............ � ............... m .............. I I I W � a CONNECT TO EXISTING 2592 8" SEWER MAIN2592 € ��► €.... .....................................D.......CO.NTRACT..L7.F�...ZA...FIELI]......_............................ e................................_.._.._..-............. _....._.................. m............._. VERIFY HORIZONTAL & f- T • Q € VERTICAL LOCATION co .. .. BEFORE CDNSTR'CT10N. I -------------- W }o I �N z .. � o 2588 Q m > > 2588 ------------ _.- ,...._ ._. ......................... -- .._..._.................... . _. __ _ - .. ...z... .- ....-._._....__._.._............................. _.............:.... eta......-...-.....-.............-........... ..__._,.._._..........._.... ..m m_........................................_....................;.......................................................... 5 7):t7 D o€� z tl= a ❑ Z 2584 €n 2584 € d t= ------- - --- ------ ............................................. ...--....--.-......-...........----...-................ ....... ..........._........_._...._... �.. �_ _. ...... :...................................................................................................................... ....................................... . ................ .. .. ... ......... _...._.......,w _ _.. w Q (L � W� SEWER LINE A � o 0 j x°z W W Ln cp co cc co � � W ❑ rn o � mo ca ❑ N 0 oa ao as V3 +� co cO co co to co cD — N N N N N N N g E 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 zm y 04 W F P r Q 04 O a� N I` r c THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF LEAVITT & ASSOCIATES z N ENGINEERS, INC AND THE DESIGN AND IDEAS WITHIN ARE NOT SCALE: Sheet Number: TO BE USED IN WHOLE OR PART WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT 1„_40, OF LEAVITT & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. r TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ° 1 FOR I AMBLES RUN SUBDIVISION II I Z �: i `„ i'� i rl. ;`: I I SHED.. i I ° CULTIVATED FIELD ; ; 1 A PORTION OF LOT 26 , BLOCK 1 , DUNWOODY SUBDIVISION , GS I Gs GS ; ; 1 W �= -' LYING IN THE NW 1/4 , SECTION 29 , TAN . , R . IE . , B ./A . , �11G$ y8 GS 0 G5 X p4.12 GS �Okg3 GS xpk91 GS x°4gb I I x°y�0 0y2� I I 1 a ` ADA COUNTY , IDAHO 4 23 G5 04 I x 04 041 I 1 I ° ° I I 26 30 15 0 30 60 90 I I I i EXISTING 10' PUBLIC UTILITIES, DRAINAGE �S ; 1 ° LEGEND I AND IRRIGATION EASEMENT I I SCALE IN FEET I I S 89°35'30" W 379.1 I' ' I I „ - ' ---- --I -------�--------- I 30 - - BOUNDARY LINE i I------ -- ---- ---------------------------------- T- I- I - - - - - - - - - - CENTER LINE 04 48 Gs I - - - - - - - - --------- - -----�---------------------- _______ ----------� -- - - - - - - - EASEMENT LINE GS i I x EXISTING 6' VINYL FENCE LINE °�by I °�5g GS p4 9O GS py° G$ py j8 G5 y.lb G5 x oy 11 G$ 0y 14oy5yb G5 i I �,�^a 8s SANITARY SEWER LINE w/SIZE I x x 0 ° i �-• ` ew WATER LINE w/SIZE P JOINT TRENCH (GAS, POWER & TELE.) I I CULTIVATED FIELD ° yrR TOP OF BANK 1 I E. DUNWOODY LNlot . CENTERLINE OF DITCH x 04.5b GS PI PRESSURE IRRIGATION LINE 1 o I - ROLL CURB & GUTTER 65 cs ; {�'� .o ' O4 5y GS I0481 1 Oy61 1 GS GS yy G$ I I 1 ^*. I - EXISTING BUILDING " I X py.2 x°y.2 G$ x oy. II G$ ; 1 .._ -:�v Cc)` :> x. , ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT 1 51 9 GS 08 GS 9p ~� ^* ' x Oy' py.5 I ob. oy. 1 - CONCRETE 1 Leo x SITE W i' 1 .�:� FOUND ALUMINUM CAP 1 ' I 1 • o W Z �' r TEST PIT O FOUND 5/8" IRON PIN - n I I TEST PIT o i = �✓ - _` "Q `-� ,.F�+`4p ^ry` _ 0 FOUND 1/2 IRON PIN I I I 1 c9 �E. HANDEL ST. _ �T. _ .,. •, �, �- _ z ? ' �+ -.,'xra '�rE. HANDEL ST. 1`0 • CALCULATED POINT, NOT SET 88 GS Gs x oy 12 b G$ $ I i 1 X �.- _ 00 MANHOLE x 04 oy 2°' Gs 05 b 14 G x I P` w Z y VICINITY MAP CO L 1 x 0y89 5 G5 x 0 06 N 1 GS I 1 1 ® CLEAN OUT Z0 i '�0y� x OyBy G$ 4�cs 10 x°b b POOL i 1 � NOT TO SCALE WATER VALVE w/BLOW-OFF 0I I I Y FIRE HYDRANT ' . 1 o .,, O I I CULTIVATED FIELD � I 1 x x I 1 $54.92 6 5 EXISTING ELEVATION (GROUND SHOT) �'`-� I W I I - v LIP LIP OF GUTTER L`- 1 _ = 1 I :: x I CLPV C/L OF ASPHALTIC PAVEMENT "_; 1 x py29 GS - ` m I '• TRC TOP OF ROLL CURB 1 GS W I y.26 Gs 581 G5 Gs �� ; I • . •.. TB TOP OF BANK x 05.2 o I ° I yg G5 05.8165 x ob p2 0618 G$ o66ACs I o ob 12 GS ; 1 • . INv BOTTOM OF DITCH O 1 x°y boa GS x - * 1 , cc TOP OF CONCRETE I EXISTING 10' PUBLIC UTILITIES, DRAINAGE i 1 •! •;••:• .e •� �': AND IRRIGATION EASEMENT ; I WELL < • . 0 1 1 .1 :4 , DECIDUOUS TREE I 0 ° , I GS 1 F1 w 1 05.0 • • • • • Z. • �][� G5 4 G5 5 I I .y o x 05 59 I GS GS x°b 0 5 x o09 G GS G5 60 G$ i 1 • • . } M 2606 °ybl x 05 9y ob 39 G x ob 49 ob 13 y�06� Z Z x I 1 1 I � o 1 o i 1 P CONTOURINTERVALS ' E w I 1 - 1988 VERTICAL DATUM co) m 0 7) % O Ln 0- I 260 CULTIVATED FIELD I I - Z o 6 I m ate°) 1 x ob�4 GS i 1 00 0 3 x O6 10 GS I 1 IRRIGATION DITCH b62 G$ i 1 ;; : :: �_ ,> 1.; ' :: J i`' N ; N 9 6$ c5 GS 12" PVC PIPE x 0 G$ 9 GS 0y GS $ I j 1 y LLI N 0 os O68 I os 06.39 -- o Ob 60 ob q3 0 ---- o ti 01 � 1 39 G G$ I N TB - - - - �eiq.` 4 ?� - - - - - - - - --s�''/'�- 18T8 - - - - -s�'i TB - - - o6�si J 18 62j' T8 6s�� T8 �06B�i� rB I 10G08•y1 I 1 W o W ti� b•13 - - - - Ob22 - - - - - - - - - - - -'rob-@ 'R�-644 - - - - - -_'yv-662- - - - - - - -'l'� 6b8- _ - - - - - - - - _'l'�-11y- - - - - - - - 'l'` 01.55 01' I I m 0-= - - - - - - - - - 0 -- - - - - - - - - - - °_- - - - - - - - °-- - - - - - - - - - - °=- - - - - - - - gy - - � 5TO I 2607 0 IN = 2595.09t 25.00' TOP 2608 y I J m I 0P P FIELD VERIFY bl T 42 TOP 02iy` 08• IRRIGATION BOX I 1 0.90, a °' w 16TOP y2TOP 08-ybT 2608 09.21 2609 0j006- - - - - - bTRG9GG_ _ -2�0'9� - - - -125.00'°9_ - - - -- - - - - p9 - - - - 41.90 °� 55.09' 1 ►,' w 0 O8' - - - - - - - - O8- 42.32' - - - - - - - - - - c b 1 1559 OI p CENTER OF SECTION 29 I. Q p 30 -29 ------------------------ • x- c c • 0 I ---------------- S 89°35'30" W 1614.10' Lo N 89°35'30" E 664.68' PI PI I PI ° �� CO f I •I PI PI PI PI I PI PI r S 89 35 30 W 379.24 - �, I � I TOP OF BOX= 09.65 � O i 4" PVC PIPE s� ,rPo O6�BC�A`x �` O6 8y TRGIg GG 3.5' WITNESS CORNER 01. I I Z I I I O " w o -;- N I N 25' cn 25' 0. " BENCH MARK❑" CHISELED IN TOP n I I 5 m O 0 i i•• 3 J • BACK of CURB p " N m V I 0�0 06�1 86 GIP jk TRG ELEVATION = 2606.86 i ; jcn II LL o V i • . i 3 Q ;; 1.; :: :: . ;` 06s! N G�PV TRG _ I z O U z 8 0. �: ;; �, :5 I 2 N 2 069� .r iTPc• 06b, 0bb p692 GG a I N r r r - i - o ' ACREAGE: 2.88 ACRES O �. ° a°� p i00 V � O W E W 060jc I N 3 G�PV ° ,o TRG 4 GG i = 12 m N 0 = oc pbb l Ob.5 pb 8 I U s I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYOR Q cn ��a 3.5' WITNESS CORNER o 1 3.5' WITNESS CORNER I J�J N Q Fo------------------------------------------- I, PATRICK A. TEALEY, PLS NO. 4347, STATE OF IDAHO, DO CS J t- 3 RING = 2606.45 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE SURVEY REPRESENTED ON THIS PLAT O m O z • I INV. = 2594.62 WAS PERFORMED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND a J w u- 6�z��c• OI i IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STATE OF IDAHO CODES ATING TO Q 0 ------------------1---------------------------==-os--c�:� pb SIP SIP I o---------- z z es pb L ----------------------------------- PLATS AND SURVEYS AND THE CORNER PERPET D FILING 'P9TF 0b08 066 3.5' WITNESS CORNER IRRIGATION DISTRICT SETTLER'S IRRIGATION DISTRICT ACT. F 8W 8W \N 0 z _ NOTE U RING = 2606.55 DRAINAGE DISTRICT N/A J a INV. =2594.38 \ Q I. THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM I FIELD SURVEY INFORMATION AND UTILITY COMPANY MAPS. THE li► i n SURVEYOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND EAST HANDEL STREET Z I SEWAGE DISPOSAL CITY OF MERIDIAN UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCH UTILITIES IN THE AREA, w EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYOR FURTHER DOES Q NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN co I WATER SUPPLY CITY OF MERIDIAN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THAT ------------------------------------------------------ Z THEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM 0- I INFORMATION AVAILABLE. CONTACT DIGLINE AT 1-800-252-1133 FOR EXACT UTILITY LOCATION PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. ��� V i FLOOD ZONE X (FEMA MAP NUMBER 16001CO161 J JUNE 18, 2020) 0 z 4743-top.dwg 12-04-20 I6:03:25 jcox DWG\3485-TOP Preliminary Storm Water Runoff Calculations for AMBLES RUN SUBDIVISION Meridian, Idaho ANAL 17650 OF 4� J. PO ( 7_ 2c ZC/ LEAVITT & ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. CIVIL -SMCTuML-81AV"M-LMu WALOPIAW 1324 15t Street South,Nampa Idaho 83651 —(208)463-7670—www.leavittnengineers.com Revision# Reviewed and Certified by Prepared by Project# 00 Nathan J. Porter, P.E. Dan Lardie 20177.001 DESIGN CRITERIA: 100-year storm Event(ACHD), 50-year storm Event(ACHD) TABLE OF CONTENTS RunoffArea Map---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 DesignCriteria------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Runoff Areas & Runoff Coefficients----------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 RationalMethod----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 Area 1 Post Development Flow ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 Area 1 Pond and Trench Size-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6 PipeFlow------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 Sand & Grease Trap Design--------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8 GutterFlow----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 GrateInlet -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 DECEMBER16,2026 S 119.35,30•M 379.11' S89'35'30"%N 379.11 ' 0 0 15927 SF 16365 SF 0.37 0.38 O — O 0 0 PARC-L A j 5.50, Sq F 2.8f Ac. 0 17923 SF I 18388 SF 0.41 0.42 O. I fl O O Z 0 18408 SF 0 0.42 17915 SF 0.41 I'I --y ov`zii-7 rl T AREA 1 TOTAL AREA= 125,504SF H RIGHT-OF-WAY =20,578SF DRIVE WAY = 3,000SF E ROOF = 6,000 SF a F r_ 0 N a rn Title: LEAVITT&ASSOCIATES DRAINAGE AREAS ENGINEERS, INC. a STRUCTURAL*CIVIL gowner: Project: N MICHAEL MILLER PROJECT NAME SURVEYING c 1308 N.12TH STREET o Number: Scale: N BOISE,IDAHO 83702 1 60' Designedraven b (Chocked b 1324 nm STREET SOUM, NAMPA, IOAHO B3651 (208)866-1487 Y' Y y' P61 K (2M)463--0333/463-7670 FAX (20a)463-9040 PAGE Z LEAVITT &ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. JOB Ambles Run 1324 1st Street South JOB NUMBER: 20177 Nampa,Idaho 83651 DATE: 12/16/2020 (208)463-0333 FILE: Design Criteria Subdivision Information Total Area: 145975 sf= 3.35 acres Type of Area: Urban Construction Type: Residential-Single Family Average Slope: 1% Policy Manual:ACHD Policy Manual-Section 8000,Drainage-2015 Rainfall Intesity Area Classification. Zone A Primary Conveyance Design Storm Frequency: 25 yr Secondary Conveyance Design Storm Frequency: 100 yr Minimum Depth of Freeboard: 6 in (18 in preferred) Maximum Side Slope of Infiltration Swales 3:1 Minimum Depth of Bottom of Infiltration Facility to Groundwater: 3 ft Minimum Depth of Bottom of Infiltration Facility to Bedrock. 3 ft Time of Infiltration Until No Visible Water Exists After Primary Storm: 48 hrs Time of Infiltration Until No Visible Water Exists After Secondary Storm: 72 hrs Predevelopment Flow 2 1 25 1 50 100 C= 0.13 i 60min (in/hr) 0.26 0,69 1 0.82 0,96 i(24hr)(in/hr) 0.04 0.08 0.09 0.10 Qu= CIA Qu60min (CfS) 0.11 0,30 0.36 0.42 Qu(24hr)(CfS) 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 Storm Conveyance Statement The primary flow will be conveyed through gutters,sand&grease traps,catch basins,drop inlets&grates, and pipes with minimum impact or inconvenience to the public. The following items will be designed based on the primary flow: sand&grease traps -pipes catch basins gutters(clear driving lane) drop inlets&grates The secondary flow: -gutters(depth of water does not exceed 12 in.) PAGE LEAVITT &ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. JOB: Ambles Run 1324 1st Street South JOB NUMBER: 20177 Nampa,Idaho 83651 DATE: 12/17/2020 (208)463-0333 FILE: 0 Runoff Areas&Runoff Coefficients Cd= Developed runoff coefficient = 0.50 (or use Cmodieed value if higher) Cmodifed— Roof Area(0.95)+Paved Area(0.90)+Landscaoed Area(0.20)+Gravel Area(0.4)+Undeveloped Area(0.15) Total Area Tc= Time of Concentration,based on Kirpichs equation for flow on concrete or asphalt L�.s Tc=0.0078x(hs��07 L=Length of roadway from furthest point to drainage facility(ft) In=elevation change from furthest point to top of drainage facility(ft) if Tc>1 hr,use 60 min Area 1 6 LOTS ft2 acres Total Area= 125,504 2.88 Total Hardsurface(ROW+500 sq ft 23,578 0.54 driveway per lot)= Roof Area= 6,000 0,14 Total Landscape 95,926 2.20 Landscape Runoff(67%of Total 64,270 1.48 Landscape)= Length of Drainage Path,L(ft)= 200 Elevation Change,h(ft)= 0.9 Effective Area=Hardsurface+Roof+ 67%Landscape 93848 2.15 Cmodified= 0.37 Use 0.50 Tc(min)= 4 min Use 10 NOTE: Rainfall on individual lots is the responsibility of the homeowner. However,the stormwater shall accommodate flows from the driveways and half of the area of the homes and garages in the subdivision. As a conservative measure,67%of all landscaped areas,which includes private properties and the remaining half of the roof area,has been considered to contribute to the public stormwater system. PAGE LEAVITT&ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS,INC. JOB. Ambles Run 1324 1st Street South JOB NUMBER: 20177 Nampa,Idaho 83651 DATE: 12/16/2020 208/463-0333 FILE: 0 STORM RUNOFF CALCULATIONS-RATIONAL METHOD SUMMARY OF RATIONAL METHOD FLOW CALCULATION Table 1:Zone A Rainfal Intensity, i(in/hr) Duration 2 25 50 100 10 0.69 1.85 2.20 2.58 Qa=RUNOFF FLOW,CFS=C'i'A 15 059 1.56 1.86 2.18 i=Rainfal Intensity-From Table 1-Zone Rainfal Intensity 20 0.49 1.30 1,54 181 A=Runoff Area,Acres 25 0.43 1.14 1.35 158 C=Runoff Coefficient 30 0.41 1.08 1,29 1.51 35 0.34 0.90 1.07 125 Qu=UNDEVELOPED RUNOFF,CFS(FROM PRE-DEVELOPMENT) 40 0.31 0.82 0.98 1.15 45 0.29 0.77 0.91 107 Qi=INFILTRATATION,CFS 50 0.27 0.72 0.85 1.00 Aip=Area of Infiltration at Bottom of Pond,sf(does not include area of sand window) 55 0.26 0.69 0.82 0.96 I;o=Infiltration Rate of Native Soil at Bottom of Pond,in/hr 60 0.26 0.69 0.82 0.96 A;,=Area of Infiltration of Trench,sf 120 0.16 0.39 0.46 054 I;,=Infiltration Rate of Native Soil at Bottom of Trench,in/hr 240 0 13 0.29 0.34 040 Asw=Area of Infiltration at Sand Window,sf 360 0.09 0.18 0.21 0.25 I_=Infiltration Rate of Native Soil at Bottom of Sand Window,in/hr 720 0.06 0.12 0.14 0.16 I_=Infiltration Rate of Deeper Soil at Sand Window,in/hr 1440 0.04 0.08 0.09 010 Qi=F[A(so"I(in/hr)]"(1 HR/3600 SEC)'(1 FT/12 IN) Table 2:Standard Soil Infiltration Rates" VOLUME CALCULATION Soil Class I Soil Type A-i IMedium Sand 8 Vnet=NET VOLUME REQUIRED FOR POND AND/OR SUMP STORAGE,CIF 72b I Fine Sand.Loamy Sand 2 B-1 Sand Loam 1 Vnet= Qnet"(60 sec/min)'Duration(min) B-2 Loam Silt Loam 0.5 C-1 Sand or iltyClayLoam 0,25 C-2 Clay Loam 0.15 Qnet=NET DISCHARGE FLOW WHICH FILLS THE POND OR SUMP,CFS I D lClays,Organic Muck,Duripan,Hardpan.Clayp <0 09 =Qd-Qu-Qi 'Inftration rate determined by percolation test may also be used °Minimum rate,soils with lesser rates shall not be considered as Add 25% For Sedimen candidates for infiltration facilities Vreq= Vnet x 1.25 Vs=VOLUME OF SURFACE STORAGE,CF Vs=Vnet-Subsurface Storage Capacity TIME OF INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS Time to Fill Subsurface Layer,sec=Volume of Subsurface Storage/Qs where Qs=SAND INFILTRATATION,CFS Modified Triangular Hydrograph As=Area of Trench or Sand Window Is=Infiltration Rate of ASTM C-33 Sand=8 in/hr Qs=As(sf)'Is(IN/HR)"(1 HR/3600 SEC)'(1 FT112 IN) Time Until No Visible Water Exists,sec=Time to Fill Subsurface Layer+Volume Surface Storage/Qi Total Time of Infiltration,sec=Total Required Volume/Qi PAGES LEAVITT&ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS,INC. JOB: jAmbles Run 1324 1st Street South JOB NUMBER:I 20177 Nampa,Idaho 83651 DATE: 12/16/2020 208/463-0333 FILE: 0 STORM RUNOFF CALCULATIONS-RATIONAL METHOD POST-DEVELOPMENT FLOW Storm Runoff for Soil Profile Test Pit# 1 Area 1 Depth(ft) Classification Infiltration F I Rate I 0 to 2.8 C-1 <2 Effective Area 2.8 5.4 B-1 4.00 2.154 acres 5.4 1 11.5 1 A-2b 18.00 Excavate to Free draining materia Design Runnoff Coefficient,C 0.50 >16 Groundwater Time of Concentration,Tc Bedrock/Impermeable Layer 10 min Pond/Trench Summary Area sf Depth(ft) I in/hr A x I Infiltration at Pond Bottom 0 0.0 NA 0.00 Infiltration Area of Trench 855 9.5 8.0 6840.00 Sand Window or Trench Bottom 855 11.0 8.0 684000 E(AxI)= 13680.00 sf x in/hr Qu = Discharge flow, if allowed,see predevelompent fl 0.000 cfs Assume Constant for all storm durations after tc Qi= 855 sf x in/hr x 1 hr/3600 sec x 1ft/12in= 0.317 cfs Assume Constant for all storm durations after tc Qs= 855 sf x 8 in/hr x 1 hr/3600sec x lft/12in= 0.16 cfs Assume Constant for all storm durations after tc SECONDARY RUNOFF EVENT FREQUENCY: 100 PRIMARY RUNOFF EVENT FREQUENCY: 50 Duration(Min) i(in./hr) Qd(cfs) Vnet(cf) Duration(Min i(in./hr) Qd(cfs) Vnet(cf) 10 2.58 2.779 1972.5 10 2.20 2.370 1644.6 15 2.18 2.348 2441.1 15 1.86 2.004 2026.9 20 1.81 1.950 2616.3 20 1.54 1.659 2150.3 25 1.58 1.702 2774.2 25 1.35 1.454 2278.0 30 1.51 1,627 3147.8 30 129 1.390 2578.3 35 1.25 1.347 2887.2 35 1.07 1.153 2343.6 40 1.15 1,239 2954.E 40 0.98 1.05E 2367.8 45 1.07 1,153 3013.3 45 0.91 0.980 2392.0 50 1.00 1.077 3046.1 50 0.85 0.916 2398,9 55 0.96 1.034 3160.8 55 0.82 0.883 2496A 60 0.96 1.034 3448.2 60 0.82 0.883 2723.4 120 0.54 0.582 2547.5 120 0.46 0.496 17192 240 0.40 0.431 2195.9 240 0.34 0.366 953.4 360 0,25 0.269 0.0 360 0.21 0.22E 0.0 720 0.16 0.172 0.0 720 0.14 0.151 0.0 1440 0.10 0.108 0.0 1440 0.09 0,097 0.0 SECONDARY CONVEYANCE FLOW RATE,Q100= 2.78 cfs(at Tc) PRIMARY CONVEYANCE FLOW RATE,Q50= 2.37 cfs(at Tc) REQUIRED STORAGE VOLUME (Add 25 For Sediment)= 4310 cf VOLUME OF SUBSURFACE STORAGE= 4596 cf REQUIRED ABOVE SURFACE STORAGE VOLUME= 0 cf TIME OF INFILTRATION INTO SUBSURFACE LAYER= 29025 sec TIME UNTIL NO VISIBLE WATER EXISTS AFTER PRIMARY STORM= 25263 sec= 7.02 hrs<48hrs O.K. TIME OF UNTIL NO VISIBLE WATER EXISTS AFTER SECONDARY STORM= 29025 sec= 8.06 hrs<72hrs O.K. DEPTH FROM BOTTOM OF FACILITY TO GROUNDWATER= 16.00 ft <Minimum,No Good! DEPTH FROM BOTTOM OF FACILITY TO BEDROCK= 30.00 ft ok PAGE 6 LEAVITT&ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. JOB: Ambles Run 1324 1st Street South JOB NUMBER: 20177 Nampa, Idaho 83651 DATE: 12/16/2020 208/463-0333 FILE: 0 Pond&Trench Size Area 1-Chopin Total Required Storage Volume=4,310 cf Infiltration Pond 1 Total Pond Length= ft. Top of Water Area= 0 sf Total Pond Width = ft. Bottom of Pond Area= 0 sf Water Depth=0.00 ft. Side Slope= 4: 1 Freeboard= in. Pond Storage Volume= (Top of Pond Area+Bottom of Pond Area)/2 x Water Depth = cf SUBSURFACE STORAGE: Sand Window Storage 1 Sand Window Area=0 ftsq. Sand Window Depth=0.0 ft. Void =25% Sand Window Storage Volume= (Area x Depth x Void) cf Infiltration Trench 1 Freeboard=1.00 ft, Trench Width=9.ft. Perimeter=208 ft. Trench Length=95 ft. Area=855 ftsq. Gravel Depth= 12.5 ft. Void of Gravel =40% Sand Depth= 1,5 ft, Void of Sand=25% Not used for storage Trench Storage Volume= (EArea x Depth x Void) = 4,596 cf Total Above Surface Storage Volume= cf Total Subsurface Storage Volume= 4,596 cf Total Storage Volume= 4,596 cf >Required Volume,Dimensions Good! Required Storage Volume= 4,310 cf Summary of Infiltration Areas Depth from Area(so Grade(ft) Notes Infiltration at Bottom of Pond N/A 0.0 Does not include area of sand window or trench Infiltration Area(Bottom of Sand) 855 11.5 Bottom of Trench Sand Window or Trench Area 855 10.0 PAGE 7 LEAVITT&ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS,INC. JOB: IMitera Mitera 1324 1st Street South JOB NUMBER SDO86.O01 ISDO86,001 Nampa,Idaho 83651 DATE: 12/16/2020 12/16/2020 208/463-0333 FILE: Pipe Sizing Pipe Flow Capacity Velocity,v=1.486/n-R211`s112 n=Mannings coefficient for roughness=0.009 for PVC R=Hydraulic radius=Cross-sectional Area/Wetted Perimeter s=minimum slope Max.Flow=Qmax=Velocity'Area Pipe Size (in) R(ft) s(%) V(ft/sec) Qmax cfs 121 0.250 0.221 3.071 2AI 151 0.3131 0.22 3,57 4.38 181 0,375 0-221 4.031 7.12 211 0.4381 0.221 4.461 10,74 241 0.500 0.22I 4.881 15.33 Summary of Pipe Flows Q50 i of Q Allowable Pipe Area#Pipe# cfs Flow (cfs) Size(in) 1 all 2.37 100% 2.37 12 12 12 24 12 12 PAGE B LEAVITT&ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. JOB: Ambles Run 1324 1st Street South JOB NUMBER:120177 Nampa, Idaho 83651 DATE: 12/16/2020 208/463-0333 FILE: 10 SAND&GREASE TRAP SAND & GREASE TRAP DESIGN Sand & Grease Trap Capacity 1 Design Criterion OUTLET I Maximum Throat Velocity,Vm; 0.5 ft/s Eagle Spacing Average Residency Time,t= 20 sec. ons E uati q Baffle Height Qalbw d based on Velocity=Vma*At .Average Length Qall w,d based on Residency Time=Vol/t Dimensions of Amcor Product Q allowed Baffle based Baffle Throat Average Height Throat Area,At based on on t Size(gallons) Spacing(in) Width(ft) Length(ft) (ft) (ft) Volume Vmax(cfs) (cfs) Q max cfs 1000 20 4 4.261 3.92 6.671 66.801 3.33 3.34f 3.33 1500 21 5.25 3.761 5 9.18751 98.701 4.59 4.941 4.59 Q50 S&G Trap °i of Number of S&G Required Area# (cfs) Used(Y/N flow Q Traps Required Size(gallons) 1 2.37 Y 100% 2.37 1 1000 2 0.00 Y 100% 0.00 0 1500 3 0.00 Y 100% 0.00 0 1500 4 0.00 Y 100% 1 0.00 0 1500 51 0.00 1 Y 1 100% 1 0.00 1 0 1 1500 61 0.00 1 Y 1 100% 1 0,00 1 0 j 1500 PAGE LEAVITT&ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS,INC. JOB; Ambles Run 1324 1st Street South JOB NUMBER: 20177.00 Nampa,Idaho 83651 JDATE 12/16/2020 208/463-0333 IFILE: 0.(0 FLOW IN GUTTER REF: Izzard,C.F. "Tentative Results on Capacity of Curb Opening Inlets,"Research report no.11-B on surface Unit Conversion 0.560 Mannings Number,n= 0.016 Cross Slope,1/z= 0.020 Roadway Design: Type of Street: Local Street Min.Slope of Channel. 1.0% Road Width(TBC). 33 It Flow Summary-Primary Systems Design Criteria Number Clear Lanes Required: 0 Width of Clear Lane Required 0 It Max Depth at Roadway Crown:2 in Maximum Velocity 5 fps 050 %of flow L=(D/z) Depth at Gutter Depth at Crown Velocity Clear Lane Width Area# (cfs) at MaAmurn o (ft) (in) (in) (fps) (in) 1 2037 100% 2.37 9,96 2039 0.00 2.39 131 Okay Flow Summary-Secondary Systems Design Criteria Max.Depth at Gutter Flow Line 12 in Max Depth at Roadway Crown 6 in Maximum Velocity 8 fps 0100 %of now L=(D/z) Depth at Gutter Depth at Crown Velocity Area# (cfs) at Maximum o (ft) (in) (in) (fps) 1 2.78 100% 2.78 10.58 2.54 0.00 2.48 okay PAGE 10 LEAVITT A ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS,INC. JOB: jAmbles Run 1324 1st Street South JOB NUMBER:120177.00 Nampa,Idaho 83651 JDATE: 1211M2020 2081463-0333 FILE: 1000 GRATE INLET CAPACITY GRATE INLET CAPACITY BASED ON WEIR FORMULA: Qw=3.3*P*(H)"1.5 VALUES USED Qw= CAPACITY,CFS See Below P=PERIMETER OF GRATE,FEET 4.75 FT H=HEAD,FEET See Below GRATE INLET CAPACITY BASED ON ORIFICE FORMULA: Qo=0.6*A*SQRT(2GH) VALUES USED Do=CAPACITY,CFS See Below A= FREE OPEN AREA OF GRATE SQ.FT 2.05 SQ.FT G= GRAVITY 32.20 FT/SEC-3 H= HEAD,FEET See Below Desiqn inlet capacity based on the lower value for weir or orifice flow,see the diaqram below Depth of Flow Qw Qo Q Design Critical Flow into(1)Inlet,Based on Gutter Flow INCHES CFS CFS CFS 0.25 0.05 1.42 0.05 Maximum Conveyance Rate= 2.37 CFS 0,50 0.13 2.01 0.13 0.75 0.24 2.47 0,24 Depth of Flow at Maximum= 2.39 Inches 1.00 0.38 2,85 0.38 1,25 0.53 3.19 0.53 1.50 0.69 3.49 0.69 1.75 0.87 3.77 0.87 Actual Grate Capacity at Specified Depth.Q= 1.27 CFS 2.00 1.07 4,03 1.07 2.25 1.27 4.27 1.27 USE 2 GRATES 2.50 1.49 4.51 1.49 2.75 1.72 4.73 1.72 3.00 1.96 4.94 1.96 3.25 2921 5.14 2.21 <=TYPE A INLET GRATE 3.50 2.47 5.33 2.47 3.75 2,74 5.52 2.74 4.00 3.02 5.70 3.02 4.25 3.30 5.87 3.30 4.50 3.60 6,04 3.60 4.75 3.90 6,21 3.90 5.00 4.22 6,37 4.22 5.25 4.54 6.53 4.54 Grate Capacity 5.50 4,86 6.68 4.86 5.75 5.20 6.83 5.20 i 6.00 5.54 6.98 5.54 6.25 5.89 7.12 5.89 ' -- 6950 6.25 7.26 6.25 6.75 6.61 7.40 6.61 ' 7.00 6.98 7.54 6.98 7.25 7.36 7.67 7.36 -ie 7.50 7.75 7.80 7.75 7.75 8.14 7.93 7.93 8.00 8.53 8.06 8.06 <_TYPE NINLET GRATE - 8.25 8.94 8.18 8.18 8,50 9.34 8.31 8.31 - 8.75 9.76 8.43 8.43 z - 9.00 10A8 8.55 8.55 e 9.25 10.61 8.67 8.67 9.50 11.04 8.78 8.78 p- 12 9.75 11.48 8.90 8.90 10,00 11.92 9901 9901 mower _ _ON mw 10.25 12.37 9,12 9.12 - 10.50 12.83 9923 9.23 10.75 13.29 9.34 9.34 11.00 13.76 9945 9.45 i L t.. - _ i _ is tip. , •.� { GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION VIENNA WOODS SUBDIVISION East Dunwoody Court Meridian, ID PREPARED FOR: Mr. Michael Miller HomeFound Group, LLC 1308 North 12th Street Boise, ID 83702 PREPARED BY: December 10, 2020 Atlas Technical Consultants, LLC B201939g 2791 South Victory View Way Boise, ID 83709 ■ �rT 2791 South Victory View Way Boise, ID 83709 (208)376-4748 1 oneatlas.com December 10, 2020 Atlas No. B201939g Mr. Michael Miller HomeFound Group, LLC 1308 North 12th Street Boise, ID 83702 Subject: Geotechnical Investigation Vienna Woods Subdivision East Dunwoody Court Meridian, ID Dear Mr. Miller: In compliance with your instructions, Atlas has conducted a soils exploration and foundation evaluation for the above referenced development. Fieldwork for this investigation was conducted on November 24, 2020. Data have been analyzed to evaluate pertinent geotechnical conditions. Results of this investigation, together with our recommendations, are to be found in the following report. We have provided a PDF copy for your review and distribution. Often, questions arise concerning soil conditions because of design and construction details that occur on a project. Atlas would be pleased to continue our role as geotechnical engineers during project implementation. If you have any questions, please call us at (208) 376-4748. Respectfully submitted, ���i-a✓wML%�l C��rG�_ IJ�-0�-rr-� Gavin Marron, El Elizabeth Brown, PE Staff Engineer Geotechnical Services Manager VK" Monica Saculles, PE Senior Geotechnical Engineer Page 1 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Project Description ..................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Authorization .............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Scope of Investigation................................................................................................ 1 2. SITE DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Site Access ................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Regional Geology....................................................................................................... 2 2.3 General Site Characteristics....................................................................................... 2 2.4 Regional Site Climatology and Geochemistry............................................................. 3 3. SEISMIC SITE EVALUATION ................. ,......................................................... 3 3.1 Geoseismic Setting .................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Seismic Design Parameter Values ............................................................................. 3 4. SOILS EXPLORATION....................................................................................................... 4 4.1 Exploration and Sampling Procedures........................................................................ 4 4.2 Laboratory Testing Program....................................................................................... 4 4.3 Soil and Sediment Profile........................................................................................... 5 5. SITE HYDROLOGY.. ............................................................................................... 5 5.1 Groundwater .............................................................................................................. 5 5.2 Soil Infiltration Rates .................................................................................................. 6 6. FOUNDATION AND SLAB DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................ 7 6.1 Foundation Design Recommendations....................................................................... 7 6.2 Crawl Space Recommendations ................................................................................ 8 6.3 Floor, Patio, and Garage Slab-on-Grade.................................................................... 8 7. PAVEMENT DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................. 7.1 Flexible Pavement Section......................................................................................... 9 7.2 Pavement Subgrade Preparation ..............................................................................10 7.3 Common Pavement Section Construction Issues......................................................10 8. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................ 8.1 Earthwork..................................................................................................................10 8.2 Dry Weather..............................................................................................................11 8.3 Wet Weather.............................................................................................................11 8.4 Soft Subgrade Soils...................................................................................................12 8.5 Frozen Subgrade Soils..............................................................................................12 8.6 Structural Fill .............................................................................................................13 8.7 Backfill of Walls.........................................................................................................14 8.8 Excavations...............................................................................................................14 8.9 Groundwater Control.................................................................................................14 Atlas No. B201939g Page I i Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants � N+wi t,, de 9. GENERAL COMMENTS....................................................................................................15 10. REFERENCES.................................................................................................................16 TABLES Table1 — Seismic Design Values................................................................................................4 Table2 — Groundwater Data.......................................................................................................6 Table3 — Soil Bearing Capacity..................................................................................................7 Table 4 — Gravel Equivalent Method Flexible Pavement Specifications ......................................9 APPENDICES Appendix I Warranty and Limiting Conditions Appendix II Vicinity Map Appendix III Site Map Appendix IV Geotechnical Investigation Test Pit Log Appendix V Geotechnical General Notes Appendix VI Gravel Equivalent Method Pavement Design Appendix VII R-value Laboratory Test Data Appendix VIII Important Information About This Geotechnical Engineering Report Atlas No. B201939g Page i ii Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents results of a geotechnical investigation and analysis in support of data utilized in design of structures as defined in the 2015 International Building Code (IBC). Information in support of groundwater and stormwater issues pertinent to the practice of Civil Engineering is included. Observations and recommendations relevant to the earthwork phase of the project are also presented. Revisions in plans or drawings for the proposed development from those enumerated in this report should be brought to the attention of the soils engineer to determine whether changes in the provided recommendations are required. Deviations from noted subsurface conditions, if encountered during construction, should also be brought to the attention of the soils engineer. 1.1 Project Description The proposed development is in the northeastern portion of the City of Meridian, Ada County, ID, and occupies a portion of the SW'/4NW'/4 of Section 29, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian. This project is expected to consist of an 8-lot residential subdivision. Total settlements are limited to 1 inch. Loads of up to 4,000 pounds per lineal foot for wall footings, and column loads of up to 50,000 pounds were assumed for settlement calculations. Additionally, assumptions have been made for traffic loading of pavements. Retaining walls are not anticipated as part of the project. Atlas has not been informed of the proposed grading plan. 1.2 Authorization Authorization to perform this exploration and analysis was given in the form of a written authorization to proceed from Mr. Michael Miller of HomeFound Group, LLC to Monica Saculles of Atlas Technical Consultants (Atlas), on November 18, 2020. Said authorization is subject to terms, conditions, and limitations described in the Professional Services Contract entered into between HomeFound Group, LLC and Atlas. Our scope of services for the proposed development has been provided in our proposal dated November 17, 2020 and repeated below. 1.3 Scope of Investigation The scope of this investigation included review of geologic literature and existing available geotechnical studies of the area, visual site reconnaissance of the immediate site, subsurface exploration of the site,field and laboratory testing of materials collected, and engineering analysis and evaluation of foundation materials. Atlas No. B201939g Page11 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants 2. SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1 Site Access Access to the site may be gained via Interstate 84 to the Eagle Road exit. Proceed north on Eagle Road approximately 3.6 miles to its intersection with McMillan Road. From this intersection, proceed west 1.0 mile to Locust Grove Road. Travel north on Locust Grove Road 0.35 mile to Strauss Drive. From this intersection continue east roughly 0.16 mile to its intersection with Chopin Avenue. Continue north 0.13 mile to the end of Chopin Avenue. The site is located north of Chopin Avenue. Presently the site exists as an agricultural field. The location is depicted on site maps included in the Appendix. 2.2 Regional Geology The project site is located within the western Snake River Plain of southwestern Idaho and eastern Oregon. The plain is a northwest trending rift basin, about 45 miles wide and 200 miles long, that developed about 14 million years ago (Ma) and has since been occupied sporadically by large inland lakes. Geologic materials found within and along the plain's margins reflect volcanic and fluvial/lacustrine sedimentary processes that have led to an accumulation of approximately 1 to 2 km of interbedded volcanic and sedimentary deposits within the plain. Along the margins of the plain, streams that drained the highlands to the north and south provided coarse to fine-grained sediments eroded from granitic and volcanic rocks, respectively. About 2 million years ago the last of the lakes was drained and since that time fluvial erosion and deposition has dominated the evolution of the landscape. The project site is underlain by the "Gravel of Whitney Terrace" as mapped by Othberg and Stanford (1993). Sediments of the Whitney terrace consist of sandy pebble and cobble gravel. The Whitney terrace is the second terrace above modern Boise River floodplain, is thickest toward its eastern extent, and is mantled with 2-6 feet of loess. 2.3 General Site Characteristics The site to be developed is approximately 2.88 acres of relatively flat and level terrain. Presently, the site exists as agricultural land. Additional agricultural fields are located north and west of the site. The southern and eastern portions of the site are surrounded by residences. Vegetation primarily consists of agricultural crops, bunchgrass, and other native grass varieties typical of arid to semi-arid environments. Regional drainage is north toward the Boise River. Stormwater drainage for the site is achieved by percolation through surficial soils. The site is situated so that it is unlikely that it will receive any drainage from off-site sources. Stormwater drainage collection and retention systems are not in place on the project, but were noted south of the site along Chopin Avenue in the form of curb, gutter, and drop inlets. Atlas No. B201939g Page12 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants 2.4 Regional Site Climatology and Geochemistry According to the Western Regional Climate Center, the average precipitation for the Treasure Valley is on the order of 10 to 12 inches per year, with an annual snowfall of approximately 20 inches and a range from 3 to 49 inches. The monthly mean daily temperatures range from 21°F to 950F, with daily extremes ranging from roughly -250F to 111 OF. Winds are generally from the northwest or southeast with an annual average wind speed of approximately 9 miles per hour (mph) and a maximum of 62 mph. Soils and sediments in the area are primarily derived from siliceous materials and exhibit low electro-chemical potential for corrosion of metals or concretes. Local aggregates are generally appropriate for Portland cement and lime cement mixtures. Surface water, groundwater, and soils in the region typically have pH levels ranging from 7.2 to 8.2. 3. SEISMIC SITE EVALUATION 3.1 Geoseismic Setting Soil on site are classed as Site Class D in accordance with Chapter 20 of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) publication ASCE/SEI 7-10. Structures constructed on this site should be designed per IBC requirements for such a seismic classification. Our investigation did not reveal hazards resulting from potential earthquake motions including: slope instability, liquefaction, and surface rupture caused by faulting or lateral spreading. Incidence and anticipated acceleration of seismic activity in the area is low. 3.2 Seismic Design Parameter Values The United States Geological Survey National Seismic Hazard Maps (2008), includes a peak ground acceleration map. The map for 2% probability of exceedance in 50 years in the Western United States in standard gravity (g) indicates that a peak ground acceleration of 0.184 is appropriate for the project site based on a Site Class D. The following section provides an assessment of the earthquake-induced earthquake loads for the site based on the Risk-Targeted Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCER). The MCER spectral response acceleration for short periods, Sans, and at 1-second period, SM1, are adjusted for site class effects as required by the 2015 IBC. Design spectral response acceleration parameters as presented in the 2015 IBC are defined as a 5% damped design spectral response acceleration at short periods, SDs, and at 1-second period, SD1• The USGS National Seismic Hazards Mapping Project includes a program that provides values for ground motion at a selected site based on the same data that were used to prepare the USGS ground motion maps. The maps were developed using attenuation relationships for soft rock sites; the source model, assumptions, and empirical relationships used in preparation of the maps are described in Petersen and others (1996). Atlas No. B201939g Page13 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants Table 1 — Seismic Design Values IT Site Class D "Stiff Soil" SS 0.300 (g) S1 0.104 (g) Fa 1.560 F 2.382 SMs 0.467 SMi 0.249 Sos 0.312 Sol 0.166 4. SOILS EXPLORATION " Exploration and Sampling Procedures Field exploration conducted to determine engineering characteristics of subsurface materials included a reconnaissance of the project site and investigation by test pit. Test pit sites were located in the field by means of a Global Positioning System (GPS) device and are reportedly accurate to within fifteen feet. Upon completion of investigation, each test pit was backfilled with loose excavated materials. Re-excavation and compaction of these test pit areas are required prior to construction of overlying structures. In addition, samples were obtained from representative soil strata encountered. Samples obtained have been visually classified in the field by professional staff, identified according to test pit number and depth, placed in sealed containers, and transported to our laboratory for additional testing. Subsurface materials have been described in detail on logs provided in the Appendix. Results of field and laboratory tests are also presented in the Appendix. Atlas recommends that these logs not be used to estimate fill material quantities. 4.2 Laboratory Testing Program Along with our field investigation, a supplemental laboratory testing program was conducted to determine additional pertinent engineering characteristics of subsurface materials necessary in an analysis of anticipated behavior of the proposed structures. Laboratory tests were conducted in accordance with current applicable American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) specifications, and results of these tests are to be found in the Appendix. The laboratory testing program for this report included: Atterberg Limits Testing — ASTM D4318, Grain Size Analysis — ASTM C117/C136, and Resistance Value (R-value) and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils — Idaho T-8. Atlas No. B201939g Page14 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants 4.3 Soil and Sediment Profile The profile below represents a generalized interpretation for the project site. Note that on site soils strata, encountered between test pit locations, may vary from the individual soil profiles presented in the logs, which can be found in the Appendix. The materials encountered during exploration were quite typical for the geologic area mapped as Gravel of Whitney Terrace. Lean clay soils were encountered at ground surface. These soils varied from brown to dark brown and generally exhibited moisture contents of slightly moist to moist. Lean clays were also noted to be medium stiff to stiff. Organic materials were measured to depths of roughly 4 inches, and disturbed materials as a result of plowing activities, usually reach a depth of 1.0 foot. Poorly graded sand with silt sediments were observed below the fine-grained soils. These sediments were classified as light brown to brown, slightly moist, and medium dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand. At depth, poorly graded gravel with sand sediments were exposed. Poorly graded gravels were light brown to tan, slightly moist, and loose to medium dense. Fine to coarse- grained sand, fine to coarse gravel, and 6-inch minus cobbles were noted throughout. Competency of test pit sidewalls varied little across the site. In general, fine grained soils remained stable while more granular sediments readily sloughed. However, moisture contents will also affect wall competency with saturated soils having a tendency to readily slough when under load and unsupported. 5. SITE HYDROLOGY Existing surface drainage conditions are defined in the General Site Characteristics section. Information provided in this section is limited to observations made at the time of the investigation. Either regional or local ordinances may require information beyond the scope of this report. 5.1 Groundwater During this field investigation, groundwater was not encountered in test pits advanced to a maximum depth of 15.2 feet bgs. Soil moistures in the test pits were generally slightly moist to moist within surficial soils. Within the poorly graded sands and gravels, soil moistures were slightly moist. In the vicinity of the project site, groundwater levels are controlled in large part by residential and commercial irrigation activity and leakage from nearby canals. Maximum groundwater elevations likely occur during the later portion of the irrigation season. Atlas No. B201939g Page15 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants Atlas has previously performed 6 geotechnical investigations within 0.50 mile of the project site. Information from these investigations has been provided in the table below. Table 2 — Groundwater Data Date Approximate Distance Direction from Site Groundwater Depth from Site(mile) (feet . . October 2018 0.27 Northeast Not Encountered to 16.2 May 2017 0.48 Northeast Not Encountered to 16.7 October 2013 0.25 Southwest Not Encountered to 14.7 November 2019 0.27 Northwest Not Encountered to 16.1 January 2005 0.36 Northwest Not Encountered to 16.5 June 2004 0.44 Northwest Not Encountered to 14.5 For construction purposes, groundwater depth can be assumed to remain greater than 20 feet bgs throughout the year. Since this is an estimated depth and seasonal groundwater levels fluctuate, actual levels should be confirmed by periodic groundwater data collected from the piezometer installed in test pit 1. If desired, Atlas is available to perform this monitoring. 5.2 Soil Infiltration Rates Soil permeability, which is a measure of the ability of a soil to transmit a fluid, was tested in the field. For this report, an estimation of infiltration is also presented using generally recognized values for each soil type and gradation. Of soils comprising the generalized soil profile for this study, lean clay soils generally offer little permeability, with typical hydraulic infiltration rates of less than 2 inches per hour. Poorly graded sand and gravel sediments typically exhibit infiltration values in excess of 12 inches per hour. Water was added to test pit 1 at a depth of 6.1 feet bgs and drained in excess of 8 inches per hour within the poorly graded gravel with sand sediments. After water was added to the test pit at 6.1 feet, the test pit was advanced to its termination depth of 15.2 feet bgs. It is recommended that infiltration facilities constructed on the site be extended into native poorly graded gravel with sand sediments. Excavation depths of approximately 5.8 to 6.7 feet bgs should be anticipated to expose these poorly graded gravel with sand sediments. Because of the high soil permeability, ASTM C33 filter sand, or equivalent, should be incorporated into design of infiltration facilities. An infiltration rate of 8 inches per hour should be used in design. Actual infiltration rates should be confirmed at the time of construction. Atlas No. B201939g Page16 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants 6. FOUNDATION AND SLAB DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Various foundation types have been considered for support of the development. Two requirements must be met in the design of foundations. First, the applied bearing stress must be less than the ultimate bearing capacity of foundation soils to maintain stability. Second, total and differential settlement must not exceed an amount that will produce an adverse behavior of the superstructure. Allowable settlement is usually exceeded before bearing capacity considerations become important; thus, allowable bearing pressure is normally controlled by settlement considerations. Considering subsurface conditions and the proposed construction, it is recommended that the structures be founded upon conventional spread footings and continuous wall footings. Total settlements should not exceed 1 inch if the following design and construction recommendations are observed. Presently, there are approximately 8 lots proposed for the project site. The following recommendations are not specific to the individual structures, but rather should be viewed as guidelines for the subdivision-wide development. 6.1 Foundation Design Recommendations Based on data obtained from the site and test results from various laboratory tests performed, Atlas recommends the following guidelines for the net allowable soil bearing capacity: Table 3 — Soil Bearing Capacity Footing Depth q ASTM D1557 Net Allowable Soil Subgrade CompactionCapacity Footings must bear on competent, undisturbed, 1,5001bs/ft2 native lean clay soils or compacted structural fill. Not Required for Native Existing plow zones, organic material, and fill Soil A 1/3increase is allowable materials (if encountered) must be completely for short-term loading, removed from below foundation elements.' which is defined by Excavation depths of roughly 1 foot bgs should be 95%for Structural Fill seismic events or anticipated to expose proper bearing soils.2 designed wind speeds. 'It will be required for Atlas personnel to verify the bearing soil suitability for each structure at the time of construction. 2Depending on the time of year construction takes place,the subgrade soils may be unstable because of high moisture contents. If unstable conditions are encountered,over-excavation and replacement with granular structural fill and/or use of geotextiles may be required. The following sliding frictional coefficient values should be used: 1) 0.35 for footings bearing on native lean clay soils and 2) 0.45 for footings bearing on granular structural fill. A passive lateral earth pressure of 264 pounds per square foot per foot (psf/ft) should be used for lean clay soils. For compacted sandy gravel fill, a passive lateral earth pressure of 496 psf/ft should be used. Atlas No. B201939g Page17 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants Footings should be proportioned to meet either the stated soil bearing capacity or the 2015 IBC minimum requirements. Total settlement should be limited to approximately 1 inch, and differential settlement should be limited to approximately '/2 inch. Objectionable soil types encountered at the bottom of footing excavations should be removed and replaced with structural fill. Excessively loose or soft areas that are encountered in the footings subgrade will require over-excavation and backfilling with structural fill. To minimize the effects of slight differential movement that may occur because of variations in the character of supporting soils and seasonal moisture content, Atlas recommends continuous footings be suitably reinforced to make them as rigid as possible. For frost protection, the bottom of external footings should be 24 inches below finished grade. Based on the soil types encountered onsite, foundation drains are not needed. 6.2 Crawl Space Recommendations Atlas recommends that roof drains carry stormwater at least 10 feet away from each residence. Grades should be at least 5 percent for a distance of 10 feet away from all residences. In addition, rain gutters should be placed around all sides of residences, and backfill around stem walls should be placed and compacted in a controlled manner. 6.3 Floor, Patio, and Garage Slab-on-Grade Plow zones with organic materials were encountered in portions of the site. Atlas recommends that the organic materials be removed. If plow zones remain after organic materials have been removed, the exposed subgrade must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. Atlas personnel must be present during excavation to identify these materials. Organic, loose, or obviously compressive materials must be removed prior to placement of concrete floors or floor-supporting fill. In addition, the remaining subgrade should be treated in accordance with guidelines presented in the Earthwork section. Areas of excessive yielding should be excavated and backfilled with structural fill. Fill used to increase the elevation of the floor slab should meet requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section. Fill materials must be compacted to a minimum 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. A free-draining granular mat should be provided below slabs-on-grade to provide drainage and a uniform and stable bearing surface. This should be a minimum of 4 inches in thickness and properly compacted. The mat should consist of a sand and gravel mixture, complying with Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction (ISPWC) specifications for 3/4-inch (Type 1) crushed aggregate. The granular mat should be compacted to no less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. A moisture-retarder should be placed beneath floor slabs to minimize potential ground moisture effects on moisture-sensitive floor coverings. The moisture-retarder should be at least 15-mil in thickness and have a permeance of less than 0.01 US perms as determined by ASTM E96. Placement of the moisture-retarder will require special consideration with regard to effects on the slab-on-grade and should adhere to recommendations outlined in the ACI 302.1 R and ASTM E1745 publications. Upon request, Atlas can provide further consultation regarding installation. Atlas No. B201939g Page18 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants 7. PAVEMENT DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Atlas has used a traffic index of 6 to determine the necessary pavement cross-section for the site. Atlas has made assumptions for traffic loading variables based on the character of the proposed construction. The Client should review these assumptions to make sure they reflect intended use and loading of pavements both now and in the future. Atlas collected a sample of near-surface soils for Resistance Value (R-value) testing representative of soils to depths of 1.5 feet below existing ground surface. This sample, consisting of lean clay collected from test pit 1, yielded an R-value of less than 5. An R-value of 4 was used for design calculations. The following are minimum thickness requirements for assured pavement function. Depending on site conditions, additional work, e.g. soil preparation, may be required to support construction equipment. These have been listed within the Soft Subgrade Soils section. Results of the test are graphically depicted in the Appendix. 7.1 Flexible Pavement Section The Gravel Equivalent Method, as defined in Section 500 of the State of Idaho Department of Transportation (ITD) Materials Manual, was used to develop the pavement sections. ACHD parameters for traffic index and substitution ratios, which were obtained from the ACHD Policy Manual, were also used in the design. A calculation sheet provided in the Appendix indicates the soils constant, traffic loading, traffic projections, and material constants used to calculate the pavement sections. Atlas recommends that materials used in the construction of asphaltic concrete pavements meet the requirements of the ISPWC Standard Specification for Highway Construction. Construction of the pavement section should be in accordance with these specifications and should adhere to guidelines recommended in the section on Construction Considerations. Table 4— Gravel Equivalent Method Flexible Pavement Specifications ComponentPavement Section Asphaltic Concrete 2.5 Inches Crushed Aggregate Base 4.0 Inches Structural Subbase 14.0 Inches Compacted Subgrade See Pavement Subgrade Preparation Section 'It will be required for Atlas personnel to verify subgrade competency at the time of construction. • Asphaltic Concrete: Asphalt mix design shall meet the requirements of ISPWC, Section 810 Class III plant mix. Materials shall be placed in accordance with ISPWC Standard Specifications for Highway Construction. • Aggregate Base: Material complying with ISPWC Standards for Crushed Aggregate Materials. Atlas No. B201939g Page19 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants • Structural Subbase: Granular structural fill material complying with the requirements detailed in the Structural Fill section of this report except that the maximum material diameter is no more than 2/3 the component thickness. Gradation and suitability requirements shall be per ISPWC Section 801, Table 1. 7.2 Pavement Subgrade Preparation Plow zones with organic materials were encountered in portions of the site. Atlas recommends that the organic materials be removed. If plow zones remain after organic materials have been removed, the exposed subgrade must be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 for flexible pavements and ASTM D1557 for rigid pavements. Atlas personnel must be present during excavation to identify these materials. 7.3 Common Pavement Section Construction Issues The subgrade upon which above pavement sections are to be constructed must be properly stripped, compacted (if indicated), inspected, and proof-rolled. Proof rolling of subgrade soils should be accomplished using a heavy rubber-tired, fully loaded, tandem-axle dump truck or equivalent. Verification of subgrade competence by Atlas personnel at the time of construction is required. Fill materials on the site must demonstrate the indicated compaction prior to placing material in support of the pavement section. Atlas anticipated that pavement areas will be subjected to moderate traffic. Subgrade clayey soils near and above optimum moisture contents may pump during compaction. Pumping or soft areas must be removed and replaced with structural fill. Fill material and aggregates, as well as compacted native subgrade soils, in support of the pavement section must be compacted to no less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698 for flexible pavements and by ASTM D1557 for rigid pavements. If a material placed as a pavement section component cannot be tested by usual compaction testing methods, then compaction of that material must be approved by observed proof rolling. Minor deflections from proof rolling for flexible pavements are allowable. Deflections from proof rolling of rigid pavement support courses should not be visually detectable. 8. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Recommendations in this report are based upon structural elements of the project being founded on competent, native lean clay soils or compacted structural fill. Structural areas should be stripped to an elevation that exposes these soil types. 8.1 Earthwork Excessively organic soils, deleterious materials, or disturbed soils generally undergo high volume changes when subjected to loads, which is detrimental to subgrade behavior in the area of pavements, floor slabs, structural fills, and foundations. Grasses with associated root systems were noted at the time of our investigation. It is recommended that organic or disturbed soils, if encountered, be removed to depths of 1 foot (minimum), and wasted or stockpiled for later use. Atlas No. B201939g Page110 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants However, in areas where trees are/were present, deeper excavation depths should be anticipated. Stripping depths should be adjusted in the field to assure that the entire root zone or disturbed zone (plow depths) or topsoil are removed prior to placement and compaction of structural fill materials. Exact removal depths should be determined during grading operations by Atlas personnel, and should be based upon subgrade soil type, composition, and firmness or soil stability. If underground storage tanks, underground utilities, wells, or septic systems are discovered during construction activities, they must be decommissioned then removed or abandoned in accordance with governing Federal, State, and local agencies. Excavations developed as the result of such removal must be backfilled with structural fill materials as defined in the Structural Fill section. Atlas should oversee subgrade conditions (i.e., moisture content) as well as placement and compaction of new fill (if required) after native soils are excavated to design grade. Recommendations for structural fill presented in this report can be used to minimize volume changes and differential settlements that are detrimental to the behavior of footings, pavements, and floor slabs. Sufficient density tests should be performed to properly monitor compaction. For structural fill beneath building structures, one in-place density test per lift for every 5,000 square feet is recommended. In parking and driveway areas, this can be decreased to one test per lift for every 10,000 square feet. 8.2 Dry Weather If construction is to be conducted during dry seasonal conditions, many problems associated with soft soils may be avoided. However, some rutting of subgrade soils may be induced by shallow groundwater conditions related to springtime runoff or irrigation activities during late summer through early fall. Solutions to problems associated with soft subgrade soils are outlined in the Soft Subgrade Soils section. Problems may also arise because of lack of moisture in native and fill soils at time of placement. This will require the addition of water to achieve near-optimum moisture levels. Low-cohesion soils exposed in excavations may become friable, increasing chances of sloughing or caving. Measures to control excessive dust should be considered as part of the overall health and safety management plan. 8.3 Wet Weather If construction is to be conducted during wet seasonal conditions (commonly from mid-November through May), problems associated with soft soils must be considered as part of the construction plan. During this time of year, fine-grained soils such as silts and clays will become unstable with increased moisture content, and eventually deform or rut. Additionally, constant low temperatures reduce the possibility of drying soils to near optimum conditions. Atlas No. B201939g Page 111 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants 8.4 Soft Subgrade Soils Shallow fine-grained subgrade soils that are high in moisture content should be expected to pump and rut under construction traffic. During periods of wet weather, construction may become very difficult if not impossible. The following recommendations and options have been included for dealing with soft subgrade conditions: • Track-mounted vehicles should be used to strip the subgrade of root matter and other deleterious debris. Heavy rubber-tired equipment should be prohibited from operating directly on the native subgrade and areas in which structural fill materials have been placed. Construction traffic should be restricted to designated roadways that do not cross, or cross on a limited basis, proposed roadway or parking areas. • Soft areas can be over-excavated and replaced with granular structural fill. • Construction roadways on soft subgrade soils should consist of a minimum 2-foot thickness of large cobbles of 4 to 6 inches in diameter with sufficient sand and fines to fill voids. Construction entrances should consist of a 6-inch thickness of clean, 2-inch minimum, angular drain-rock and must be a minimum of 10 feet wide and 30 to 50 feet long. During the construction process, top dressing of the entrance may be required for maintenance. • Scarification and aeration of subgrade soils can be employed to reduce the moisture content of wet subgrade soils. After stripping is complete, the exposed subgrade should be ripped or disked to a depth of 1'/z feet and allowed to air dry for 2 to 4 weeks. Further disking should be performed on a weekly basis to aid the aeration process. • Alternative soil stabilization methods include use of geotextiles, lime, and cement stabilization. Atlas is available to provide recommendations and guidelines at your request. 8.5 Frozen Subgrade Soils Prior to placement of structural fill materials or foundation elements, frozen subgrade soils must either be allowed to thaw or be stripped to depths that expose non-frozen soils and wasted or stockpiled for later use. Stockpiled materials must be allowed to thaw and return to near-optimal conditions prior to use as structural fill. The onsite, shallow clayey soils are susceptible to frost heave during freezing temperatures. For exterior flatwork and other structural elements, adequate drainage away from subgrades is critical. Compaction and use of structural fill will also help to mitigate the potential for frost heave. Complete removal of frost susceptible soils for the full frost depth, followed by replacement with a non-frost susceptible structural fill, can also be used to mitigate the potential for frost heave. Atlas is available to provide further guidance/assistance upon request. Atlas No. B201939g Page112 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants 8.6 Structural Fill Soils recommended for use as structural fill are those classified as GW, GP, SW, and SP in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) (ASTM D2487). Use of silty soils (USCS designation of GM, SM, and ML) as structural fill may be acceptable. However, use of silty soils (GM, SM, and ML) as structural fill below footings is prohibited. These materials require very high moisture contents for compaction and require a long time to dry out if natural moisture contents are too high and may also be susceptible to frost heave under certain conditions. Therefore, these materials can be quite difficult to work with as moisture content, lift thickness, and compactive effort becomes difficult to control. If silty soil is used for structural fill, lift thicknesses should not exceed 6 inches (loose), and fill material moisture must be closely monitored at both the working elevation and the elevations of materials already placed. Following placement, silty soils must be protected from degradation resulting from construction traffic or subsequent construction. Recommended granular structural fill materials, those classified as GW, GP, SW, and SP, should consist of a 6-inch minus select, clean, granular soil with no more than 50 percent oversize (greater than 3/4-inch) material and no more than 12 percent fines (passing No. 200 sieve). These fill materials should be placed in layers not to exceed 12 inches in loose thickness. Prior to placement of structural fill materials, surfaces must be prepared as outlined in the Construction Considerations section. Structural fill material should be moisture-conditioned to achieve optimum moisture content prior to compaction. For structural fill below footings, areas of compacted backfill must extend outside the perimeter of the footings for a distance equal to the thickness of fill between the bottom of foundation and underlying soils, or 5 feet, whichever is less. All fill materials must be monitored during placement and tested to confirm compaction requirements, outlined below, have been achieved. Each layer of structural fill must be compacted, as outlined below: • Below Structures and Rigid Pavements: A minimum of 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557. • Below Flexible Pavements: A minimum of 92 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557 or 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D698. The ASTM D1557 test method must be used for samples containing up to 40 percent oversize (greater than %-inch) particles. If material contains more than 40 percent but less than 50 percent oversize particles, compaction of fill must be confirmed by proof rolling each lift with a 10-ton vibratory roller(or equivalent) until the maximum density has been achieved. Density testing must be performed after each proof rolling pass until the in-place density test results indicate a drop (or no increase) in the dry density, defined as maximum density or "break over" point. The number of required passes should be used as the requirements on the remainder of fill placement. Material should contain sufficient fines to fill void spaces, and must not contain more than 50 percent oversize particles. Atlas No. B201939g Page113 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants 8.7 Backfill of Walls Backfill materials must conform to the requirements of structural fill, as defined in this report. For wall heights greater than 2.5 feet, the maximum material size should not exceed 4 inches in diameter. Placing oversized material against rigid surfaces interferes with proper compaction, and can induce excessive point loads on walls. Backfill shall not commence until the wall has gained sufficient strength to resist placement and compaction forces. Further, retaining walls above 2.5 feet in height shall be backfilled in a manner that will limit the potential for damage from compaction methods and/or equipment. It is recommended that only small hand-operated compaction equipment be used for compaction of backfill within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall, measured from the back face of the wall. Backfill should be compacted in accordance with the specifications for structural fill, except in those areas where it is determined that future settlement is not a concern, such as planter areas. In nonstructural areas, backfill must be compacted to a firm and unyielding condition. _xcavations Shallow excavations that do not exceed 4 feet in depth may be constructed with side slopes approaching vertical. Below this depth, it is recommended that slopes be constructed in accordance with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, Section 1926, Subpart P. Based on these regulations, on-site soils are classified as type "C" soil, and as such, excavations within these soils should be constructed at a maximum slope of 1'/2 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical (11/2:1) for excavations up to 20 feet in height. Excavations in excess of 20 feet will require additional analysis. Note that these slope angles are considered stable for short-term conditions only, and will not be stable for long-term conditions. During the subsurface exploration, test pit sidewalls generally exhibited little indication of collapse. For deep excavations, native granular sediments cannot be expected to remain in position. These materials are prone to failure and may collapse, thereby undermining upper soil layers. This is especially true when excavations approach depths near the water table. Care must be taken to ensure that excavations are properly backfilled in accordance with procedures outlined in this report. 8.9 Groundwater Control Special precautions may be required for control of surface runoff and subsurface seepage. It is recommended that runoff be directed away from open excavations. Clayey soils may become soft and pump if subjected to excessive traffic during time of surface runoff. Ponded water in construction areas should be drained through methods such as trenching, sloping, crowning grades, nightly smooth drum rolling, or installing a French drain system. Additionally, temporary or permanent driveway sections should be constructed if extended wet weather is forecasted. Atlas No. B201939g Page 114 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants 9. GENERAL COMMENTS Based on the subsurface conditions encountered during this investigation and available information regarding the proposed development, the site is adequate for the planned construction. When plans and specifications are complete, and if significant changes are made in the character or location of the proposed structure, consultation with Atlas must be arranged as supplementary recommendations may be required. Suitability of subgrade soils and compaction of structural fill materials must be verified by Atlas personnel prior to placement of structural elements. Additionally, monitoring and testing should be performed to verify that suitable materials are used for structural fill and that proper placement and compaction techniques are utilized. Atlas No. B201939g Page115 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants 10. REFERENCES Ada County Highway District (ACHD) (2017). Ada County Highway District Policy Manual (August 2017). [Online] Available: <http://www.achdidaho.org/AboutACHD/PolicyManual.aspx> (2020). American Concrete Institute (ACI) (2015). Guide for Concrete Floor and Slab Construction: ACI 302.1 R. Farmington Hills, MI: ACI. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) (2013). Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures: ASCE/SEI 7-10. Reston, VA: ASCE. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2017). Standard Test Method for Materials Finer than 75-um (No. 200) Sieve in Mineral Aggregates by Washing: ASTM C117. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2014). Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates: ASTM C136. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2012). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Standard Effort: ASTM D698. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2012). Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using Modified Effort: ASTM D1557. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2013). Standard Test Methods for Resistance Value (R-Value) and Expansion Pressure of Compacted Soils: ASTM D2844. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials(ASTM) (2017). Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes(Unified Soil Classification System):ASTM D2487.West Conshohocken, PA:ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2017). Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils: ASTM D4318. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2011). Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs: ASTM E1745. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM. Desert Research Institute.Western Regional Climate Center. [Online]Available: <http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/> (2020). International Building Code Council (2015). International Building Code, 2015. Country Club Hills, IL: Author. Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC) (2017). Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, 2017. Boise, ID: Author. Othberg, K. L. and Stanford, L. A., Idaho Geologic Society (1993). Geologic Map of the Boise Valley and Adioining Area, Western Snake River Plain, Idaho. (scale 1:100,000). Boise, ID: Joslyn and Morris. U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. CFR 29, Part 1926, Subpart P: Safety and Health Regulations for Construction, Excavations (1986). [Online] Available: <www.osha.gov> (2020). Atlas No. B201939g Page116 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants de �rN+wi t, U.S. Geological Survey (2020). National Water Information System: Web Interface. [Online] Available: <http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis> (2020). U.S. Geological Survey. (2011). U.S. Seismic Design Maps: Web Interface. [Online] Available: <https://earthquake.usgs.gov/designmaps/us/application.php> (2020). Atlas No. B201939g Page117 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants Appendix I WARRANTY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS Atlas warrants that findings and conclusions contained herein have been formulated in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practice in the fields of foundation engineering, soil mechanics, and engineering geology only for the site and project described in this report. These engineering methods have been developed to provide the client with information regarding apparent or potential engineering conditions relating to the site within the scope cited above and are necessarily limited to conditions observed at the time of the site visit and research. Field observations and research reported herein are considered sufficient in detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for the purposes cited above. Exclusive Use This report was prepared for exclusive use of the property owner(s), at the time of the report, and their retained design consultants ("Client"). Conclusions and recommendations presented in this report are based on the agreed-upon scope of work outlined in this report together with the Contract for Professional Services between the Client and Materials Testing and Inspection ("Consultant"). Use or misuse of this report, or reliance upon findings hereof, by parties other than the Client is at their own risk. Neither Client nor Consultant make representation of warranty to such other parties as to accuracy or completeness of this report or suitability of its use by such other parties for purposes whatsoever, known or unknown, to Client or Consultant. Neither Client nor Consultant shall have liability to indemnify or hold harmless third parties for losses incurred by actual or purported use or misuse of this report. No other warranties are implied or expressed. Report Recommendations are Limited and Subject to Misinterpretation There is a distinct possibility that conditions may exist that could not be identified within the scope of the investigation or that were not apparent during our site investigation. Findings of this report are limited to data collected from noted explorations advanced and do not account for unidentified fill zones, unsuitable soil types or conditions, and variability in soil moisture and groundwater conditions. To avoid possible misinterpretations of findings, conclusions, and implications of this report, Atlas should be retained to explain the report contents to other design professionals as well as construction professionals. Since actual subsurface conditions on the site can only be verified by earthwork, note that construction recommendations are based on general assumptions from selective observations and selective field exploratory sampling. Upon commencement of construction, such conditions may be identified that require corrective actions, and these required corrective actions may impact the project budget. Therefore, construction recommendations in this report should be considered preliminary, and Atlas should be retained to observe actual subsurface conditions during earthwork construction activities to provide additional construction recommendations as needed. Since geotechnical reports are subject to misinterpretation, do not separate the soil logs from the report. Rather, provide a copy of, or authorize for their use, the complete report to other design Atlas No. B201939g Page118 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants professionals or contractors. Locations of exploratory sites referenced within this report should be considered approximate locations only. For more accurate locations, services of a professional land surveyor are recommended. This report is also limited to information available at the time it was prepared. In the event additional information is provided to Atlas following publication of our report, it will be forwarded to the client for evaluation in the form received. Environmental Concerns Comments in this report concerning either onsite conditions or observations, including soil appearances and odors, are provided as general information. These comments are not intended to describe, quantify, or evaluate environmental concerns or situations. Since personnel, skills, procedures, standards, and equipment differ, a geotechnical investigation report is not intended to substitute for a geoenviron mental investigation or a Phase II/III Environmental Site Assessment. If environmental services are needed, Atlas can provide, via a separate contract, those personnel who are trained to investigate and delineate soil and water contamination. Atlas No. B201939g Page119 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants I • , • NOTES: ■ ► Delorme Street Atlas Not to Scale LEGEND �., Ilk lk •■ E USTICK k �. i M M�r., �1 �� f#tea �� ■ Vienna WoodsSubdivision DecemberMeridian,ID Modified from DeLorme by:CCW _ WOLED . 01939. � s 2791 S.Victory View Way Phone: (208)376-4748 Web: oneatlas.corn r �. Site Map Figure 2 ® NOTES: � N •Not to Scale t I I I I I 0 z LEGEND 0 Approximate Site — — o Boundary c� Co Approximate Atlas Test Pit Location Approximate Atlas Test Pit Location __ __ __ with Piezometer I i i I i i I I TP-1 I i TP-2 ® i i 8 i i i i Vienna Woods Subdivision East Dunwoody Court Meridian,ID I Drawn by:CCW December 10,2020 c� Drawing:B201939g 0 0 z � m r'�Tc1�� z — — — — — — —HANDEL STREET— — — — — — — — m 2791 S.Victory View Way Phone: (208)376-4748 Boise,ID 83709 Fax: (208)322-6515 Web: oneatlas.com Appendix IV GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-1 Latitude: 43.656332 Date Advanced: November 24, 2020 Longitude: -116.371114 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Gavin Marron, El Total Depth: 15.2 feet bgs Depth Field Description and USCS Soil and Sample Sample Depth h • Lab ••s) Sediment Classification12 • bgs) Test ID Lean Clay (CL): Brown to dark brown, slightly 0.0-3.4 moist to moist, medium stiff to stiff. Bulk 1.0-1.5 R-value --Organics to a depth of 4 inches. --Plow zones to a depth of 0.9 foot bgs. Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Light 3.4-5.8 brown to brown, slightly moist, medium dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Light 5.8-15.2 brown to tan, slightly moist, loose to medium dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand, fine to coarse gravel, and 6-inch-minus cobbles. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Piezometer installed to a depth of 15.2 feet bgs. Water was added at a depth of 6.1 feet bgs and drained in excess of 8 inches per hour. Atlas No. 13201939g Page 122 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TEST PIT LOG Test Pit Log#: TP-2 Latitude: 43.656303 Date Advanced: November 24, 2020 Longitude: -116.371992 Excavated by: Turn of the Century Homes Depth to Water Table: Not Encountered Logged by: Gavin Marron, El Total Depth: 11.2 feet bgs Depth Field Description and USCS Soil and Sample Sample Depth .. i& 4- .. Lean Clay (CL): Brown to dark brown, moist, 0.0-3.2 medium stiff. GS 1.0-1.5 0.5-0.75 A --Organics to a depth of 4 inches. --Plow zones to a depth of 1.0 foot bgs. Poorly Graded Sand with Silt (SP-SM): Light 3.2-6.7 brown to brown, slightly moist, medium dense, with fine to medium-grained sand. Poorly Graded Gravel with Sand (GP): Light 6.7-11.2 brown to tan, slightly moist, medium dense, with fine to coarse-grained sand,fine to coarse gravel, and 6-inch-minus cobbles. Notes:See Site Map for test pit location. Lab Test ID Moisture'q Sieve Analysis (% Passing) 0 1 #40 #100 #200 A 24.4 35 17 100 1 100 99 93 86.8 Atlas No. B201939g Page 123 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants Appendix V GEOTECHNICAL GENERAL NOTES Unified Soil Classification System Major Divisions Symbol Soil Descriptions Gravel & GW Well-graded ravels; ravel/sand mixtures with little or no fines Coarse- Gravelly Soils GP Poorly-graded ravels; ravel/sand mixtures with little or no fines Grained < 50% GM Silty gravels; poorly-graded ravel/sand/silt mixtures Soils < coarse GC Clayey gravels; poorly-graded gravel/sand/clay mixtures 50% Sand & Sandy SW Well-graded sands; gravelly sands with little or no fines passes Soils > 50% SP Poorly-graded sands; gravelly sands with little or no fines sieve coarse SM Silty sands; poorly-graded sand/gravel/silt mixtures sieve fraction SC Clayey sands; poorly-graded sand/gravel/clay mixtures Fine- ML Inorganic silts; sandy, gravellyor clayey silts Grained Silts &Clays CL Lean clays; inorganic, gravelly, sandy, or silty, low to medium- Soils > LL < 50 lasticit cla s 50% OL Organic, low-plasticity clays and silts passes MH Inorganic, elastic silts; sand gravellyor clayey elastic silts No.200 Silts &Clays CH Fat clays; high-plasticity, inorganic clays sieve LL > 50 OH Organic, medium to high-plasticity clays and silts Highly Organic Soils PT Peat, humus, h dric soils with high organic content Relative Density and Consistency Moisture Content and Cementation Coarse-Grained Soils SPT Blow Counts (N) Description Field Test Very Loose: < 4 Dry Absence of moisture, dry to touch Loose: 4-10 Slightly Moist Damp, but no visible moisture Medium Dense: 10-30 Moist Visible moisture Dense: 30-50 Wet Visible free water Very Dense: > 50 Saturated Soil is usually below water table Fine-Grained Soils SPT Blow Counts (N) Description Field Test Very Soft: < 2 Weak Crumbles or breaks with handling or Soft: 2-4 slight finger pressure Medium Stiff: 4-8 Moderate Crumbles or breaks with Stiff: 8-15 considerable finger pressure Very Stiff: 15-30 Strong Will not crumble or break with finger Hard: > 30 pressure 'Particle Size _Ijjjjj&_ — Acronym List Boulders: > 12 in. GS grab sample Cobbles: 12 to 3 in. LL Liquid Limit Gravel: 3 in. to 5 mm M moisture content Coarse-Grained Sand: 5 to 0.6 mm NP non-plastic Medium-Grained Sand: 0.6 to 0.2 mm PI Plasticity Index Fine-Grained Sand: 0.2 to 0.075 mm QP penetrometer value, unconfined compressive Silts: 0.075 to 0.005 mm strength, tsf Clays: < 0.005 mm V vane value, ultimate shearing strength, tsf Atlas No. B201939g Page 124 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants Appendix VI GRAVEL EQUIVALENT METHOD PAVEMENT DESIGN Pavement Section Design Location:Vienna Wood Subdikision, Residential Roadways Average Daily Traffic Count: All Lanes&Both Directions Design Life: 20 Years Traffic Index: 6.00 Climate Factor: 1 R-Value of Subgrade: 4.00 Subgrade CBR Value: 2 Subgrade Mr: 3,000 R-Value of Aggregate Base: 80 R-Value of Granular Borrow: 60 Subgrade R-Value: 4 Expansion Pressure of Subgrade: 1.40 Unit Weight of Base Materials: 130 Total Design Life 18 kip ESAL's: 33,131 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE: Gravel Equivalent,Calculated: 0.384 Thickness: 0.196923077 Use= 2.5 Inches Gravel Equivalent,ACTUAL: 0.41 CRUSHED AGGREGATE BASE: Gravel Equivalent(Ballast): 0.768 Thickness: 0.329 Use= 4 Inches Gravel Equivalent,ACTUAL: 0.773 SUBBASE: Gravel Equivalent(Ballast): 1.843 Thickness: 1.070 Use= 14 Inches Gravel Equivalent,ACTUAL: 1.940 TOTAL Thickness: 1.708 Thickness Required by Exp.Pressure: 1.551 Design ACHD Depth Substitution Inches Ratios Asphaltic Concrete(at least 2.5): 2.50 1.95 Asphalt Treated Base(at least 4.2): 0.00 Cement Treated Base(at least 4.2): 0.00 Crushed Aggregate Base(at least 4.2): 4.00 1.10 Subbase (at least 4.2): 14.00 1.00 Atlas No. B201939g Page 125 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants Appendix VII R-VALUE LABORATORY TEST DATA Source and Description: TP1: 1.0 to 1.5 feet bgs. Lean Clay Date Obtained: November 24,2020 Sample ID: 20-0989 Sampling and Preparation: ASTM D75: AASHTO T2: X ASTM AASHTO X D421: T87: Test Standard: ASTM AASHTO Idaho T8: X D2844: T190: Sample A B C Dry Density Ib/ft3 NA NA NA Moisture Content (%) NA NA NA Expansion Pressure (psi) NA NA NA Exudation Pressure (psi) NA NA NA R-Value NA NA NA R-Value @ 200 psi Exudation Pressure = Less than 5** ** ASTM D2844 Note 2: Occasionally, material from very plastic clay-test specimens will extrude from under the mold and around the follower ram during the loading operation. If this occurs when the 800-psi point is reached and fewer than five lights are lighted, the soil should be reported as less than 5 R-value. Atlas No. B201939g Page 126 Copyright©2020 Atlas Technical Consultants IMPOPIOnt InfOPM81100 Rhout M 0 Geolechnical-Engineeping SubWhile . . . . . . . . . . . . . .cost overruns, claims, and help. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a has prepared this advisory to help you—assumedly different civil engineer.Because each geotechnical-engineering study a client representative—interpret and apply this is unique,each geotechnical-engineering report is unique,prepared geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as solely for the client. possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered Likewise,geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific exposure to problems associated with subsurface project and purpose.For example,it is unlikely that a geotechnical- conditions at project sites and development of engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as them that,for decades, have been a principal cause one prepared for a parking garage;and a few borings drilled during of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to and disputes. If you have questions or want more develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project. information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical • for a different client; engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation • for a different project or purpose; techniques that can be of genuine benefit for • for a different site(that may or may not include all or a portion of everyone involved with a construction project. the original site);or before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g.,man-made events like construction or environmental Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services remediation,or natural events like floods,droughts,earthquakes, Provided for this Report or groundwater fluctuations. Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection,interpretation,and analysis of exploratory data from Note,too,the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can widely spaced borings and/or test pits.Field data are combined be affected by the passage of time,because of factors like changed with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained subsurface conditions;new or modified codes,standards,or from field exploration(if applicable),observations made during site regulations;or new techniques or tools.If you are the least bit uncertain reconnaissance,and historical information to form one or more models about the continued reliability of this report,contact your geotechnical of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site.Local geology engineer before applying the recommendations in it.A minor amount and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time-if any is proposed construction are also important considerations.Geotechnical required at all-could prevent major problems. engineers apply their engineering training,experience,and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface Read this Report in Full model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected engineering report did not read the report in its entirety.Do not rely on performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or an executive summary.Do not read selective elements only.Read and affected by construction activities. refer to the report in full. The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained,a discussion About Change of the subsurface model(s),the engineering and geologic engineering Your geotechnical engineer considered unique,project-specific factors assessments and analyses made,and the recommendations developed when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing to satisfy the given requirements of the project.These reports may be the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. titled investigations,explorations,studies,assessments,or evaluations. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include Regardless of the title used,the geotechnical-engineering report is an those that affect: engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context - the site's size or shape; of the project and does not represent a close examination,systematic inquiry,or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions. the elevation,configuration,location,orientation, function or weight of the proposed structure and Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed the desired performance criteria; the composition of the design team;or for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, . project ownership. and At Specific Times Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific As a general rule,always inform your geotechnical engineer of project needs,goals,and risk management preferences of their clients.A or site changes-even minor ones-and request an assessment of their geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer impact.The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical conspicuously that you've included the material for information purposes engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise only.To avoid misunderstanding,you may also want to note that would have considered. "informational purposes"means constructors have no right to rely on the interpretations,opinions,conclusions,or recommendations in the Most Of the "Findings" Related in This Report report.Be certain that constructors know they may learn about specific Are Professional Opinions project requirements,including options selected from the report,only Before construction begins,geotechnical engineers explore a site's from the design drawings and specifications.Remind constructors subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures.Geotechnical that they may perform their own studies if they want to,and be sure to engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific allow enough time to permit them to do so.Only then might you be in locations where sampling and testing is performed.The data derived from a position to give constructors the information available to you,while that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about stemming from unanticipated conditions.Conducting prebid and subsurface conditions throughout the site.Actual sitewide-subsurface preconstruction conferences can also be valuable in this respect. conditions may differ-maybe significantly-from those indicated in this report.Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer Read Responsibility Provisions Closely to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain Some client representatives,design professionals,and constructors do informed guidance quickly,whenever needed. not realize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines.This happens in part because soil and rock on This Report's Recommendations Are project sites are typically heterogeneous and not manufactured materials Confirmation-Dependent with well-defined engineering properties like steel and concrete.That The recommendations included in this report-including any options or lack of understanding has nurtured unrealistic expectations that have alternatives-are confirmation-dependent.In other words,they are not resulted in disappointments,delays,cost overruns,claims,and disputes. final,because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily To confront that risk,geotechnical engineers commonly include on judgement and opinion to do so.Your geotechnical engineer can finalize explanatory provisions in their reports.Sometimes labeled"limitations,' the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineers' exposed during construction.If through observation your geotechnical responsibilities begin and end,to help others recognize their own engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, responsibilities and risks.Read these provisions closely.Ask questions. the recommendations can be relied upon,assuming no other changes have Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. occurred.The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liabilityfor confirmation-dependent recommendations fyou Geoenvironmental Concerns Are Not Covered fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. The personnel,equipment,and techniques used to perform an environmental study-e.g.,a"phase-one"or"phase-two"environmental This Report Could Be Misinterpreted site assessment-differ significantly from those used to perform a Other design professionals'misinterpretation of geotechnical- geotechnical-engineering study.For that reason,a geotechnical-engineering engineering reports has resulted in costly problems.Confront that risk report does not usually provide environmental findings,conclusions,or by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of recommendations;e.g.,about the likelihood of encountering underground the design team,to: storage tanks or regulated contaminants.Unanticipated subsurface • confer with other design-team members; environmental problems have led to project failures.If you have not • help develop specifications; obtained your own environmental information about the project site, review pertinent elements of other design professionals'plans and ask your geotechnical consultant for a recommendation on how to find specifications;and environmental risk-management guidance. • be available whenever geotechnical-engineering guidance is needed. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with You should also confront the risk of constructors misinterpreting this Moisture Infiltration and Mold report.Do so by retaining your geotechnical engineer to participate in While your geotechnical engineer may have addressed groundwater, prebid and preconstruction conferences and to perform construction- water infiltration,or similar issues in this report,the engineer's phase observations. services were not designed,conducted,or intended to prevent migration of moisture-including water vapor-from the soil Give Constructors a Complete Report and Guidance through building slabs and walls and into the building interior,where Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can shift it can cause mold growth and material-performance deficiencies. unanticipated-subsurface-conditions liability to constructors by limiting Accordingly,proper implementation of the geotechnical engineer's the information they provide for bid preparation.To help prevent recommendations will not of itself be sufficient to prevent the costly,contentious problems this practice has caused,include the moisture infiltration.Confront the risk of moisture infiltration by complete geotechnical-engineering report,along with any attachments including building-envelope or mold specialists on the design team. or appendices,with your contract documents,but be certain to note Geotechnical engineers are not building-envelope or mold specialists. GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS SEA ASSOCIATION Telephone:301/565-2733 e-mail:info@geoprofessional.org www.geoprofessional.org Copyright 2019 by Geoprofessional Business Association(GBA).Duplication,reproduction,or copying of this document,in whole or in part,by any means whatsoever,is strictly prohibited,except with GBM specific written permission.Excerpting,quoting,or otherwise extracting wording from this document is permitted only with the express written permission of GBA,and only for purposes of scholarly research or book review.Only members of GBA may use this document or its wording as a complement to or as an element of a report of any kind. Any other firm,individual,or other entity that so uses this document without being a GBA member could be committing negligent or intentional(fraudulent)misrepresentation.