HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOA Staff Report 01.09.2006Exhibits (1/9/06)
Exhibit
Letter
(A to Z)
Exhibit
A
Proof of Mail Receipts
B
Proof of Publication
C
Staff Memorandum dated January 9, 2006
D
Garfield County Zoning Regulations of 1978, as amended (the Zoning Code)
E
Subsoil Analysis prepared by HP Geotech dated 10/31/05
F
Final Plat portion containing Lot 2 of St. Finnbar Subdivision
BOA 01/09/06
FJ
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST Variance from the 25 -foot height limitation
APPLICANT Mara and Robert meyers
PROPERTY LOCATION Lot 11, St. Finnbar Subdivision
LOT SIZE
EXISTING ZONING
6.356 acres (Building Envelope: 36,540 sq.
ft. approx.)
ARRD
Proposed Design with Variance
,7,11
PP(P
,rEa
ACO' KA(
STCN
EP7
COMP CMElt
COPPER 00Pesrout
38 feet to top
27' 8" @ mid -point
\ 17/17
r17' 4" @ Eave
G tl ! STUCCO 1
AB°' J L LCOPPIR aTrER
COPP(R DONOSPOJE-NN
Natural Grade
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE
The Applicant proposes to construct a two-story single-family dwelling on Lot 11 of the St.
Finnbar Subdivision east of Carbondale. The lot is located adjacent to the Roaring Fork River and
is encumbered partially by the 100 -year floodplain as mapped and jurisdictionally administered by
the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA). However, the building envelope on
the lot is not located in the floodplain but requires that the first finished floor be constructed at an
elevation not lower than 6,267 feet.
The Applicant requests a variance from the County' s height limitation contained in Section 3.02.07
of the Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended which requires that all residential structures be no
taller than 25 feet as measured from the undisturbed or natural ground surface. Height is calculated
pursuant to Section 2.02.09 of the Zoning Resolution as the following:
The distance, measured vertically, from the undisturbed or natural ground surface at the
mid point between the front and rear walls of a building to the top of a flat roof or
mansard roof or to the mid point between the eave line and the peak of a gable, hip, shed
or similar pitched roof.
More specifically, the Applicant requests a variance of approximately 2' 8" above the 25 -foot
maximum height limit in order to accommodate a proposed 4 -foot crawl space intended to mitigate
potential issues resulting from high water table on the property.
As currently designed and shown on the cover of this memorandum, the top of the tallest pitched
roof (center of the front elevation) stands at 38 feet. As measured using the County's height
calculation (at the mid -point between the eave line and the peak) the height stands at 27 feet and 8
inches. This measurement is taken from grade as shown on the plans submitted by the Applicant.
This assumes that this is also natural grade as required by the regulations.
II. REFERRAL
The application was referred to Resource Engineering....
III. STAFF COMMENTS
The Applicant states that due to shallow groundwater in the subsoil of the lot, a 4 -foot crawl space
is needed to be constructed under the residence to mitigate any potential issues due to groundwater
and drainage. This crawl space will raise the height above the height limitation of 25 feet. The
Applicant commissioned a subsoil analysis conducted by HP Geotech which indicates that a slab -
on -grade foundation or crawl space will work. If the Applicant followed the slab -on -grade
recommendation, the structure could be designed to meet the County's height limitation and would
not require a height variance.
As a matter of comparison, a large two-story single-family dwelling was constructed on Lot 2 in
the same subdivision in 2001. Lot 2 is similar to the subject lot because a portion of that lot is also
located in the 100 -year floodplain. Moreover, similarly to Lot 11, the platted building envelope on
Lot 2 is not located in the floodplain but requires that the first finished floor be constructed at a
2
specific elevation (6,265.5 feet) which is platted on the plat.
Additionally, plat note # 14 on the Final Plat of the St. Finnbar Subdivision requires that
"Application for a building permit for each lot within the subdivision shall include a grading and
drainage plan consistent with the engineer's report submitted at Preliminary Plan, showing the
physical improvements necessary to mitigate the 100 -year flood flow from the drainage basin
located west of the County Road (CR 100)."
The owner of Lot 2 supplied the County with a geotechnical analysis for the subsoils and
foundation design as part of the building permit application in order to comply with this
requirement. This report, resultant of borings taken on the property, stated that "subsurface
conditions consisted of about 1/2 to 1 foot of topsoil overlying relatively dense slightly silty sandy
gravel with cobbles and boulders. Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 7' feet below the
ground surface in one of the borings. The proposed residence can be founded on spread footings
placed on the natural gravel subsoils and designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 4,000
pounds per square foot (psf). The excavation should be kept relatively shallow to avoid
construction below the groundwater level."
As a result of this geotech analysis, the dwelling was constructed following the engineer's
recommendation such that the ground floor of the structure was constructed on spread footers,
slab -on -grade ground floor, with proper drainage mitigation. Most importantly, this two-story
dwelling was constructed without the need for a variance from the County's maximum height
limitation.
Proposed Building Location
The Applicant submitted a site plan that shows the proposed residence location. This location is
problematic and not possible for two reasons. First, a . . roximately 1/3 of the proposed structure
location falls outside of the platted
building envelope. Second, the
proposed structure location falls
inside the platted 100 -year
floodplain and floodway limits. The
building envelopes for this
subdivision were established after
considerable review due to the �.
significant 100 -year floodplain
hazards on the property associated
from the Roaring Fork River. The
site plan to the right illustrates this
problem. All development is
required to occur within the
building envelope.
G, INC.
3
2051.r
12.5' 66
REC. N0.'
8K. 655
50' NANR
PEC. K0.
CENTERED
MND
CAP 4S 10722
s23 p 24'w
s38ro4 45'W
85;1,
[As a side note, the 100 -year floodplain is actually comprised of two portions: 1) the flood way
(that portion closest to the river course that carries the water in a 100 -year event) and 2) the flood
fringe (that portion outside the flood way in which the depth and velocity of water in a 100 -year
event does not impose a serious threat to life and property and can be developed with proper
mitigation).]
IV. REVIEW STANDARDS / CRITERIA
Section 9.05.03 of the Zoning Resolution provides that the Board may approve a variance request
if the strict application of any regulation enacted under this Resolution would result in peculiar and
exceptional practical difficulties to or exceptional and undue hardship on the property owner if the
following findings can be made and the review criteria can be met:
1) By reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of the specific piece of property
at the time of enactment of this Resolution, or
2) By reason of exceptional topographic conditions or other extraordinary and exceptional
situation or condition of such piece of property.
In response to these two points, Staff finds that the shape of the subject property is not
exceptionally narrow or shallow or that there exist exceptional topographic conditions or other
extraordinary and exceptional situations or conditions which would prohibit the reasonable use of
the property for the placement of a residential structure within the required building envelope as
platted on the final plat which is a document supplied to any potential buyer in the title work.
Additionally, it has been shown that a two-story residential dwelling can be constructed on an even
smaller lot within the same subdivision with similar geotechnical challenges without the need for a
variance from the County's height requirement.
V. REVIEW CRITERIA
In order for the Board of Adjustment to grant a variance, they must find the Applicant has satisfied
all of the four criteria provided in Section 9.05 of the Zoning Resolution. Staff has provided the
criteria in italicized bold text followed by a response in normal text.
1. That the variance granted is the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical difficulties or
undue hardship upon the owner of said property;
Staff Finding
This criterion can only apply if it has been demonstrated that special circumstances exist, that the
special circumstances meet the standard for hardship and that the Applicant did not create the
hardship. If this is the case, the BOA needs to determine how much of a variance can be granted.
This criterion helps ensure that the granting of the variance does not confer special privileges on
the property owner that are not enjoyed by other similarly situated properties.
4
In this case, Staff has determined that there are no special circumstances that exist to create the
hardship and that the hardship is created entirely by the Applicant's preferred foundation design.
Further, as demonstrated by the single-family dwelling constructed on Lot 2 without a variance, if
the BOA granted a variance here, this granting of the variance would confer special privileges to
the Applicant have not been enjoyed by other similarly situated properties. Ultimately, this is not
the minimum variance possible due to the fact that the Applicant could choose a foundation as
recommended by HP Geotech that would not raise the residence above the height limitation. Staff
finds this criterion is not met.
2. That such relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without
substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the General Plan or this Resolution;
Staff Finding
The purpose of a variance is to provide relief from the zoning code for a hardship caused by
zoning. For example, if the setbacks were so restrictive that reasonable use of the property was
precluded (i.e. the construction of a single-family dwelling on a lot whose setbacks left virtually no
building envelope), a variance could be granted because the hardship was caused by zoning. In this
case, there is no hardship. The height limitation of 25 feet is not so restrictive as to prevent the
construction of a single-family residence on the property without the need for a variance. In fact,
the same has been achieved on Lot 2 without the need for a variance as discussed above.
In 1970, the County zoned the property now known as St. Finnbar Subdivision Agricultural /
Residential / Rural Density (ARRD) which has always had a height limitation of 25 feet. Further,
the Board of County Commissioners approved the lots in the subdivision through an extensive
public design review process where matters specific to floodplain and high water table issues were
discussed resulting in the platted building envelopes on the final plat due to the desire to plat lots
near the Roaring Fork River. The very nature of creating lots in this area along the bottom of the
Roaring Fork Valley present design challenges that have been disclosed as plat notes on the final
plat for St. Finnbar Subdivision to alert potential buyers of the challenges associated with the
development of those lots.
The Applicant's own engineer states that these subsoil challenges can easily be mitigated with a
slab -on -grade design which would not result in a need for a variance. Staff finds that a variance
granted to accommodate the Applicant's alternative design preference represents a detriment to the
public good and impairs the intent and purpose of this Resolution. Staff finds this criterion is not
met.
3. That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship were not caused by the applicant, are
not due to or the result of general conditions in the district, and cannot be practically
corrected;
Staff Finding
The residence could easily be constructed at grade on spread footings with a slab -on -grade first
5
floor as recommended to the Applicant in the geotechnical analysis prepared by HP Geotech. If this
were followed, no variance would be needed. However, it is the Applicant's design preference to
incorporate a 4 -foot crawl space which will raise the residence above the height limitation. Further,
an alternate roof design could also result in a lesser pitch which could comply with the height
limitation. Staff finds the proposed design of the residence could easily be accommodated within
the height limitation of 25 feet and the request for the variance is simply one of design preference
caused entirely by the Applicant. Again, it has been proven that a residential design that meets the
County's height limitation can be achieved as was shown by the two-story dwelling constructed on
Lot 2 in the same subdivision which has similar subsoil challenges. This criterion is not met.
4. That the concurring vote of four (4) members of the Board shall be necessary to decide in
favor of the appellant.
Staff Finding
This shall be determined at the hearing before the Board.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
1. That proper posting and public notice was provided as required for the meeting before the
Board of Adjustment.
2. That the meeting before the Board of Adjustment was extensive and complete, that all pertinent
facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that
meeting.
3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the proposed setback variance has been determined
not to be in the best interest of the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and
welfare of the citizens of Garfield County.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Board of Adjustment deny the variance request finding that
I) That the variance requested is not the minimum necessary to alleviate such practical
difficulties or undue hardship upon the owner of said property;
2) That such relief may not be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and
without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the General Plan or this
Resolution; and
3) That the circumstances found to constitute a hardship were caused by the applicant, are
not due to or the result of general conditions in the district, and can be practically
corrected.
6
Dec 30 05 03:08p
T� or
.:32a Mitch Meyers
rtech
HEPWORTH -PAWLAK GEOTECHNICAL
31, 2005
:;c: stitch Meyers
\i by P�c�ad
f,!ancout, Illinois (204 .
t97' 927-9471
618-288-9296
50:W(;01:1,1,
kIs:'?70'M:- 'h
EXHIBIT
.Iob No.105 890
Subject: Subsoil .Htudy lar Foundation Design, Proposed I:. idence, 1,01 1 1, tit.
Finnbar Farm Subdivision. Garfield County, Colorado.
7)n7. Mr. and Mrs. Meyers:
',:: requested, 11cpworth-l'awlak Geotechnical, Inc. performed subsoil study for design
0i -foundations at the subject site. Thc study was conducted in accordance with our
neral for gcotechnical engineering services to you dated October 4, 2005. The data
our recommendations based on the proposed construction and subsurface
conditions encountered arc presented in this report. Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical. Inc.
previously conducted a preliminary, geotechnical study for development of the
subdivision and presented .our findings in a report dated August 4, 1998, Job No. 198 483.
•:s c.Construction: The proposed residence will be two story wood frame structure
in the; building envelope shown on Figure 1. Ground floor will be either structural
•c-awispace or slab -on -grade. Cul depths etre expected Lo range between about 3 to
Foundation loadings for this type of construction are assumed to be relatively light
•aJ the proposed type of -construction.
If building, conditions or Ibunclation loadings are significantly different from those
described above, we should be notified to re-evaluate the recommendations presented in
this report.
F•: •. 'Conditions: The site was vacant at the time of our field exploration. There is an
rt; asphalt paved road to the northeast of the building envelope. The Roaring Fork
is located about 90 to 120 feet to the south-southwest ol'thc building envelope. The
c c surface is relatively flat with a slight slope down to the southwest. There arc
irrigation ditches' on the rot. Vegetation consists of grass and weeds in the
envelope and cottonwood trees and brush to the south.
Subsidence Potential;: St. Finnbar Farm is underlain by Pennsylvania Age Eagle Valley
va-porite bedrock. 'Ile evaporitc contains gypsum deposits, Dissoiution of the gypsum
:;crtalo conditions can cause sinkholes to develop and can produce areas of
i, cc subsidence. Sinkholes were not observed in the immediate arca of the subject
±�e exploratory pits were relatively sh;.tllow, for Eoundatwn design only. 1"�;tsetl cut
i -7119 • (ilI 11Ll, Springs 710 -hi 1.5502 9 til 'I 970 -406-19S9
Dec 30 05 03:08p
T; or
[97 927-9471
Mitch Meters
p.3
818-288-9298
knowledge of the situ. it cannot be said for certain that sinkholes will not
Li ve:cp. In our opinion, the risk of ground subsidence at I,ot 11 is low and similar to
other lots in the area but the owner should be aware of the potential thr sinkhole
development.
Subsurface Conditions: The subsurface conditions at thc site were evaluated by
excavating two exploratory pits at the approximate locations shown on Figure 1. 'i'hc
logs of the pits are presented on Figure 2. The subsoils encountered, below about 1 foot
•.err and 1 Y2 to 2 feet of medium dense silty sand to sandy silt, consist or relatively
siig fitly silty sandy gravel with cobbles and small boulders. Results of swcll-
:,,>•7m'idation testing performcd on relatively undisturbed samples olthe upper sand and
silt soils, presented on Figures 3 and 4, indicate low compressibility under existing
Tnoisturc conditions and light loading and a low collapse: potential (settlement under
load) when wetted. The samples showed high compressibility upon increased
loading after wetting. Results of a gradation analysis performed on a sample of the:
gravels (minus :ti inch fraction) obtained fioni the site are presented on Figure 5. The
.aboratory testing is summarized on Table 1. Groundwater was observed in the pits at
of 6'/ to 7 feet at the time of cxcav titin. The soils were slightly moist to wet
coundwater level.
iroundatiun Recommendations: The excavation should he kept relatively shallow to
avoid construction below the groundwater level. Considering the subsoil conditions
-!c9untered in the exploratory pits and the nature of the proposed construction, we
recommend spread footings placed on the undisturbed natural gravel soil or compacted
structural fill designed for an allowable soil hearing pressure of 3.000 psf for support of
the proposed residence. 'J'hc upper sand and silt soils tend to compress after wetting and
be removed from beneath the; building arca. Footings should be a minimum width.
'c pus lbr continuous walls ;end 2 feet for columns. Sand, silt and loose disturbed
encountered at the foundation bearing level within the excavation should be
-cmovcd and the footing bearing level cxtcndcd down to the undisturbed natural gravel
soils. Structural fill used to rc-establisb design bearing level should consist of relatively
vrcll graded sand and gravel compacted to at least 100% of standard Proctor density at a
:•xtois_tire content near optimum. 'Fhe fill should extend laterally beyond the (Age:: of the
footings a distance equal to at least the depth of fill below thc footings. Exterior footings
should he provided with adequate cover above their bearing aring elevations for frost
-:,.7,-c!.ection. Placement of footings at least 36 inches below the exterior grade is typically
arca. Continuous foundation walls should be reinforced top and bottom to
az-!e na1ies such as by assuming an unsupported length of at least 10 feet.
To1,;:n=.ation walls acting as retaining structures should be designed to resist a lateral earth
prestiure based on in equivalent fluid unit weight of al least 45 pcf for the cin -site sand
and gravel soils, excluding oversized rock, as backfill.
,? \11.1(15 S)O
Gc_tcch
p.2
Dec 30 05 03:08p T2- 'or
(97r- 927-9471
.1,5 11:33a Mitch Meyers
p.4
618-288-8256
700r ::Iah : The natural on -silt: soils, exclusive of topsoil. are; suitable to support lightly
slab -nn -grade construction. To reduce the effects of sonic diIlcrcntial movement,
floor slabs should be separated from all bearing wails and columns with expansion ,joints
*. allow unrestrained vertical movement. Floor slab control, joints should he used to
-cd. ce damage due to shrinke=c. cracking. The requirements.for joint spacing and slab
reinlorcemcnt should he established by the (1cst{;ncr based on experience and the .intended
slab use. A minimum 4 inch layer of lice -draining gravel should be placed beneath
interior floor slabs to facilitate drainage and limit capillary moisture rise. This material
awl.' consist of minus 2 inch aggregate with less than 50% passing the No. 4 sieve and
css f. -.an 2% passing the No. 200 sieve,
ilii fl .. materials for support of floor slabs should be compacted to at feast 95% of
standard Proctor density at a moisture content near optimum. Required fill can
0;:. ;he on-site sand and gravel soils devoid of vegetation, topsoil and oversized
roc:,.
Surface Drainage: The following drainage precautions should be observed during
construction and rnaintaincd at all times after the residence has hecn completed:
1) inundation of the foundation excavations and underslab areas should he
avoided during construction. The floor level should haw adequate
elevation to protect the residence from potential flooding.
2) Exterior backfill should be adjusted to near optimum moisture and
compacted to at least 95% of the maximum standard Proctor density in
pavement and slab areas and to at least 90% of the maximum standard
Proctor density in landscape areas.
3) The ground surface surrounding the exterior of the building should be
sloped to drain away froxn the foundation in all directions. We
recommend a tnininum slope of 6 inches in the first 10 feet in unpaved
areas and a minimum slope of 3 inches in the first 10 feet in pavement and
wolkwaty areas.
4) Roof downspouts and drains should discharge well beyond the limits or all
backfill.
;Limitations: This study has been conducted in accordance with generally accepted
geotechnical engineering principles and practices in this arca at this tires_ We make 110
warranty either express or implied. The conclusions and recomxne. (Iations submitted in
rc' ort arc based upon the data obtained from the exploratory pits excavated at the
_. rs indicated on Figure ] and to the depths shows) on Figure 2, the proposed type of
cors. ruction, and our experience in the arca. Our services do not include determining the
presence, prevention or possibility of mold or other biological contaminants (MOI1C)
dcvc:oiling in the future. lithe client is concerned about MOBC, then a professional in
field of practice should he consulted. Our findings include inierpolzttion and
job nig,. t 05 :qu
Gtech
P.3
Dec 30 05 03:08p Ta 'or
[97r. 927-9471
05 11:33a Mitch Me9ers
P.
J
618-288-9296
extrapoiat ion of' the subsurface conditions identified at the exploratory pits and variations
in the subsurface conditions may not become evident until excavation is peru>rmcil. 11
conditions encountered during construction appear different from those described in this
we should he anti tied at once so re-evaluation of the recommendations ntay he
This report has been prepared lbr the exclusive use by our client for design purposes. We
are no responsible for technical interpretations by others of our information. As the
rojcet evolves, we should provide continued consultation and field services during
construction to review and monitor the implementation of our recommendations, and to
verily that the recommendations have been appropriately interpreted. Significant design
changes may require additional analysis or modifications to the recommendations
• esc-',ed herein. We recommend on-site observation of excavatio0s and foundation
.c strata and testing of structural fill by a representative of the geotechnical
cn:icgen
if you have any questions or if we may he of further assistance, please let us know.
Respectfully Submitted,
1!EPWORTH-PAWLAK CLOT 4.. L, INC.
ordy Z. Adamson, Jr.
''Qeviewed by:
_- T.. Pawlak, P.1 ..
attaclunents Figure 1 — Location of Exploratory Pits
ligure 2 — Logs of Exploratory Pits
Figures 3 & 4 Swell -Consolidation 'lest Results
Figure 5 — Gradation Test Results
Table 1 — Summary oCLahoratory'I'est Results
Ni'.I 05 %9U
G Stech
p.4
Dec 30 05 03:08p
Te or
..':33a
(97r' 927-9471
Mitch Meers
p.6
618-288-9296
p.5
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1' 80'
A
PIT 2
•
LOT 11
PIT 1 Itt
BUILDING \\\
ENVELOPE
EXISTING ASPHALT ROAD
cou\ N Pv\° 100
-tech
Mowor[h—Pewlok Ceot.Khnlcol
LOCATION OF EXPLORATORY PITS
Figure 1
Dec 30 05 03:09p Te 'or
(97r 927-9471
75 1:.:33a Mitch Meyers
_EGEND:
PIT 1
WC 3.2
DO 76
.200 • 32
P•7
618-288-9296
WC=11.6
DD --82
-200 77
:ORSO L; sandy silt and clay, organic, firm, moist, dark brown.
+4 c7
-200. 4
SAND (SM); silty to sandy silt, medium dense, slightly moist to moist. light brown.
P4`d_ (3P -GM); sandy, slightly silty, with cobbles and small boulders, dense, moist to wet below
grouniinater, light brown, rounded rock,
2" Diameter hand driven liner sample.
Disturbed bulk sample.
water love: in pit at time of excavating.
0
5
10
P•6
v rc excavated on October 20, 2005 with a Caterpillar 430D backhoe.
_- cis of exploratory pits were measured approximately by pacing from features shown on the site plan
ex, lc•atory pits were not measured and the logs 01 exploratory pits are drawn to depth.
,: cmtoni pit locations and elevations should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the method
-ss between materials shown on the exploratory pit logs represent the approximate boundaries between
aid transitions may bo gradual,
-s down on the logs were made at the time and under the conditions indicated. Fluctuations in
Wth time,
- c3 esuits:
- Wats: Content (%)
^'y Density (pcf)
cent retained on the No. 4 sieve
,ercent passing No. 200 sieve
G Sch
='eewort—PawlOk ceetechnIcal
LOGS OF EXPLORATORY PITS
Figure 2
Dec 30 05 03:09p TP 'or
05 11:34a
[97r' 927-9471
Mitch Meyers
p. 8
618-288-9286
p.7
Moisture Content _ 3.2 percent
Dry Den pity 76 pc!
Sample of: SPIN Sand
From: Pil 1 at 2 Feet
Compression
upon
wetting
1.0
APPLIED PRESSURE - kn
10
Gliavach
I<epwerth—Powlok Gnetnehelcol
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
' Figure 3
100
Dec 30 05 03:09p TP 'or
77 05 11:34a
(970' 927-9471
Mitch Meyers
p.9
use
618-298-9296
I
I
Moisture Content - 11.5 percent
Dry Donsity -- 82 pcf
Sample of: Sandy Silt
Frum' Pit 2 at 2 Fcet
I— illinik
Compression
upon
wettingo
II.
n
I
11
1.0
AK LIED PRESSUr E -
10
100
p.8
F..7
h
Hapwarth—Pav1ck C.otnehnleal
SWELL -CONSOLIDATION TEST RESULTS
Figure 4
Dec 30 O5 03:09p
Tr ' or
.:.r i? -a Mitch Meyers
I-IY[)FIOMI 11 H ANAI YSI7;
[97t" 927-9471 p.10
-4111
618-2e8-9296 p.9
0;1.VC ANAL YtAH
TIM(' WADING..:
',:* 5L MIN. e0M'NOMIN 4 MIN. 1 MIN. //200
ANI 1A110 :THIO,
CI1 Al1:;(].I/4-1I OPj N;0104:
4-100 //00 -//30 816 48 /4 :i/Er 3/4• 11/2' 7" b•0• d 100
1
t
J
1
1
l
1/
1'
1
4-
F
1.
0X .000 .0' (1
.037
.037 07A ,1,0 .300 .600
1.18 2,36 4.75 9.5 19.0 37.5 /0.2 '02 203
12/
DIAMETER OF PARTICLES IN MILLIMETERS
CAM o
I Int j- MInW Em."
GPAVEL 67 %
LIQUID LIMIT %
OF: Sandy Gravel
12..,
I ell
SAND 29
SILT AND CLAY 4 %
PLASTICITY INDEX %
FROM: Pit 2 at 6 tiro 7 :Det
Gtech
--oworth—Pawlok ( otnthntcal
GRADATION TEST RESULTS
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
IM.MyYiJ yl�[S
Figure 5
Dec 30 05 03:10p Te 'or
••z
(97r' 927-9471 p.11
-am
618-288-9296
' ...
i.VPLE I 66 f 1 ON 11. I NATURAL G
__ P.AOA110Y fCRC�tiT _. ATTER8EfG 41;111' U':CONF[':EO
110int :; DRY GRAVEL SAFIII PASSIPASSINGLIQUID
PI AS ii COP4FRESS:VE SOIL OR N 1
SIEVE
II,.PTII Ip1u.COL•;:{ DENSITY I NO. 200 LIltfl I iDrti STRENGTH BEDROCK TYPE
(ft) (%5) (KT) (%) (iS (PSF) I
1 ` 2 3.2 76 1 32 r,Silty Sand
i
2 1 2 - 11.5 82 77Sandy Silt I
i 6 to 7 67 29 4 Sandy Gravel
I
i
i
i
p.10
•
•
• t;
L.2r„
%. 260,590 SF +/•-
, 5.982 AC +
MIN. FFE=6263.5' i in
' n,j:nW
9120
` I
e`7. O'
�v
,83.5:.4
15.6-40'
0
t
i - C1"`"� ` 654.7
C3
69.57
BLUE CREECREEK
•
•
'.../;•\
100 YR FLOODPLAIN=_
LIMITS PER FEMA FIRM
MAP DATED 1/86
LU2
145,791 SF . /•-
3.346 .AC +/-
MIN. FFE:=6265.5'
1529
589'55'29'W
169.26'
-193 74, :: )_;' ;4 i0
N78127-12
7 ' k78'3 � �` \g;.
ST728 472 X84.27'
726.36."•"1
EA iv
1 NG DED 1 CAR
Ci2
7.44'52
•
EXHIBIT
31 09'
•
s\
(.,
Q
FOUND REBAR
CAP L.S. 1959
—_. Fi
U' . 2.'�t•
i
.----1-7`A'5—, 54.01' S54•, ,, �6i
ti3\2' ) '' 7 .y9 •otic,/
36• 0 ' 8 • �y / 22.37
9
o f 'yP s,'4, cc , �4 , ry�°�
9r�S
w *1N 178,304 SF +/-\
\`L
'''•
4.093 AC +//
g ' MIN. FFEa¢2Bi'�
m til
f91/
Iii, % �y.'e
k•,,, S89'55'29''W ��
ag 130.45' J
C11
2
-�
C1
1
20' UTILITY EASEAEkq
REC. NO. 254494 '
c7/6lI
1.7
'1r
TO QU91-`��
G'
`_ 89'56' 48"f
93.',4' -
124,827. SF +/--
2.865 AC +/-
MIN. FFE=6265.0'
4
F.
'-, v
•
S8'3'56' 48"E
j.OT. 13
230,032 'SF + /-
5.280 AC +/-
MIN. FFE=6267.5'
60' INGRESS, EGRESS,
EMERGENCY ACCESS,
DRAINAGE, IRRIGATION
AND UTILITY EASEMENT.
X40' PEDESTRIAN, IRRIGATION
iAND DRAINAGE EASEMENT
C4
(. rN
cam•