HomeMy WebLinkAboutMisc.February 6, 2000
B.A. Cathey, LLC
Box 9517
College Station, Texas 77842
City of College Station
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas
D G3QIF4
Attention: Mr. Jim Callaway, Director of Development Services
Subject: Campus Park Development - Irrevocable Letter of Credit
Mr. Callaway,
Attached please find an irrevocable letter of credit for an amount of one hundred
and twenty five thousand dollars ($125,000.00) to guarantee the payment and
performance of the proposed construction of the public water, sanitary sewer, and
street improvements in the Campus Park Subdivision (Phase 1A, !B, and 2), a
proposed addition of the City of College Station, Texas, for a period not to exceed
one (1) year from the date shown.
This value of this guarantee is calculated as follows:
Streets (per estimate by UDG engineer D. Keeting) $47,580
Public Water (per contract with Quality Enterprises) $23,600
Public Sewer (per contract with Quality Enterprises) $37,376
Drainage (per contract with Quality Enterprises) $ 16,345
Total $124,981
Our immediate plans are to start construction of the Phase IA and IB buildings as
soon as our site plans and construction drawings have been approved.
Sincerely yours,
ORA
Blake Cathey
Attachments: Irrevocable Letter of Credit No.
Probable Cost Estimate
Contract between B.A.Cathey, LLC and Quality Enterprises
FROM: NIA
oQ Q
ISSUER: 1J1,4
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT
DATE:
JVIA
TO BENEFICIARY: City of College Station
Attention: Mr. Jim Callaway, Director o ervices
1 101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77840
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NO.: N
ISSUE DATE: 12:00 Noon Central Standard Time, October, 1999
EXPIRATION DATE: 12:00 Noon Central Standard Time, October , 2000, or upon the completion
and final payment to all contractors, whichever occurs first.
AMOUNT: O Ale4un,jr" 0 T O S ND �' ° HUNDRED
IU O AND NO /100 DOLLARS ($ (x•00)
ACCOUNT OF: 13, A • 112 A , (herein "DEVELOPER")
�K 5 �-
.e
GENERAL TERMS & CONDITIONS:
The Issuing Bank set out above hereby issues its IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT NO. N/A
in favor of the CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS, in accordance with Chapter 5, V.T.C.A. TEXA
BUSINESS AND CO MMERCE CODE and pursuant to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Colle,gge Station,
V ter 9: Subdivisions, for the Account of DEVELOPER for an amount of up to CA-1 Ate - daeda
�wPit THOUSAND Mf HUNDRED 0 AND N01100 DOLLARS
ZS', D o0 .00). This amount is available by your draft(s) payable at sight when accompanied by the
following:
1. Sworn Statement by a duly authorized representative of the City of College Station, Texas, stating
that Developer has/have defaulted and failed to complete the performance and construction of the
improvements described below in accordance with the Chapter 9 of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of College Station, Texas, and that the proceeds from this Letter of Credit will either be
utilized by the City of College Station, Texas, to complete such construction or will be returned by
the City of College Station to the Issuing Bank.
O � P F �Ci
Js 1c1mydocs 11999/westfield.doc
10/15199
SPE CIAL
1. All banking fees /expenses /charges incurred are for the account of Developer. This Letter of
Credit is issued in conjunction with the development of Developer in the City of College Station,
Texas, specifically for the following:
To guarantee the payment and performance of the proposed construction of the
water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer and street improvements in 64�
�Q�foa�i r'Sc i" , a proposed addition to the City of College Station,
Texas, for a period not to exceed one (1) year from the date hereof.
2. Disbursements pursuant to this Letter of Credit will never exceed the above - stated amount, less
any amount released by the City of College Station, Texas. The amount of credit under this Letter
of Credit may be reduced upon approval and acceptance by the City of College Station of
completed improvements, which reduction may only be made with the written authorization of the
Director of Development Services of the City of College Station.
3. In accordance with Section 5.106 of the TEXAS BUSINESS AND COMMERCE CODE, this Letter of
Credit may be modified, upon the execution and delivery to Issuer of a sworn statement giving
consent to modification by the Director of Development Services of the City of College Station.
4. This is not at notation credit, and the City of College Station, Beneficiary, shall be entitled to
payment without presentation of documents.
4. The Issuer of this Letter of Credit has caused this Letter to be signed by the undersigned officer
who has attached proof of his authorization to sign, together with attestation by Issuer's authorized
attesting officer and sealed with the seal of Issuer.
Q ISSUER: AIA"
BY: Ae
Authorized Officer
Attested By: �/ A
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF BRAZOS *
This instrument was acknowledged before me on October _, 1999, by
the authorized officer of , Issuer, a Texas Banking Corporation, on
behalf of said Banking Corporation and in the capacity stated.
Notary Public — State of Texas
Jsklmydocs /1999 /westfteld. doc
/0//5/99
i Bridgette George - New Development Page 1
From:
Jennifer Reeves
To:
Bridgette George
Date:
11/16/99 3:16PM
Subject:
New Development
Week of 11/15/99
Northgate Center: (99 -730) Developer installs conduit per city spec and design. Developer provides 30'
rigid pipe for riser. Note: We only have single phase service available to this site, 120/240. We will need
load information as soon as possible, and a digital site plan.
Spencer's Cove: (99 -253) No Comment.
The Business Center at College Station: (99 -248) No Comment.
Stata Corporation: (99 -450) Developer installs conduit per city spec & design. Developer responsible for
extending 2-4" conduit to existing property line or future road.We will need load information as soon as
possible and a digital site plan.
Precision Tune: (99 -452) Developer installs conduit per city spec & design. We will need load information
and digital site plan.
Campus Park Phase 1 -A: (99 -252) Developer installs conduit per city spec & design. Existing street light
to be relocated at developer's cost.
y Campus Park Phase 1 -A: (99 -505) Developer installs conduit per city spec & design. Existing street light
to be relocated at developer's cost.
/03/99 17:08 V409 764 3496 DEVELOPMENT SVCS [a 003
From:
Jennifer Reeves
To:
Bridgette George
Date:
11 /16/99 3:16PM
Subject:
New Development
Week of 11/15/99
Northgate Center: (99.730) Developer installs conduit per city spec and design. Developer provides 30'
rigid pipe for riser. Note: We only have single phase service available to this she,120/240. We will need
load information as soon as possible, and a digital site plan.
Spencer's Cove: (99 -253) No Comment.
The Business Center at College Station: (99 -248) No Comment.
Stata Corporation: (99 -450) Developer Installs conduit per city spec & design. Developer responsible for
extending 2-4" conduit to existing property line or future road.We will need load information as soon as
possible and a digital site plan.
Precision Tune: (99 -452) Developer installs conduit per city spec & design. We will need load information
and digital site plan.
Campus Park Phase 1 -A: (99 -252) Developer installs conduit per city spec & design. Existing street light
to be relocated at developers cost.
Campus Park Phase 1 -A: (99 -505) Developer installs conduit per city spec & design. Existing street light
to be relocated at developer's cost.
IM
Urban Design Group
February 24, 2000
Jessica Zimmerman, Staff Planner
Development Services Administration
1101 Texas Avenue
College Station, Texas 77842 -9960
Via: Hand delivery
Re: Capmus Park, Revised Site Plans
Dear Jessica,
We understand the City has approved the site plans for the Campus Park Subdivision.
However, changes were made to those plans by individuals not under the supervision of
the design engineer of record. We understand the City had concerns with the addition of
note # 6 to the site plans. As per our discussion yesterday, we would prefer to revise the
note acceptable to staff rather than staff deleting portions from the plans. Therefore,
attached please find the revised site plans. If the note still is not acceptable to the staff
we can modify. It is important that the CSC geotechnical report be referenced on the site
plan as there are two different geotechnical reports floating around.
The revisions on the attached set of plans include the following:
Note # 6 — revised to include reference to CSC geotechnical report
Water demands — revised in summary block to reflect demands per meter, and added
diagram showing lot numbers for reference
Cleanouts — revised sewer cleanout locations to be on the easement line
Water meter — adjusted location slightly to ensure within public easement
I understand the owner is under time pressures for this project. However, we need to be
in agreement with the information provided on the plans before the approval stamp is
given. If you have any additional concerns with respect to the plans, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
tnzt; M
Deborah L. Keating, P.E.
Attachments (3)
CAzimmermanl.doc
Post Office Box 10153 • College Station, Texas 77842 • 409 • 69 6 . 9653
Stuart Construction Compan
May 22, 2000
Natalie Ruiz
City of College Station, Texas
Regarding 1115 Welsh Avenue
q q- 5c)-5
On May 12 / visited briefly with you and said that the developer of the Campus
Park property had installed underground utilities and also a transformer on
a portion of my property at the above address, this work being done on this
property in an area in which there is no utility easement. You suggested to me
that l should talk with someone at Urban Design. I was referred there to the
office of Brad Kerr with whom / also talked. That was on Monday May 15.
Mr. Kerr called me on Tuesday May 16 and said that he had done research
concerning this and that indeed there is no recorded easement on my property.
He offered two suggestions, the first being the removal of all utility installation
which had been done and the second was to write an easement thus leaving all
as it was at the time. l indicated to him that I had no interest in having an
easement on the property to which he responded that he would begin the
process of having the utilities removed from my property.
On Thursday May 18 / received a call from Mr. Cathey, the developer of Campus
Park, asking me to come to the site to meet with him and Ron Lowe, owner of
Ron Lowe Electric Company. I went and at that time I told them what / had
previously said to Brad Kerr, and that is that I am not interested in granting
an easement on any part of my property and that all utility construction that
had been done should be removed to Mr. Cathey's side of the property line.
From:
Blake Cathey <bcathey @flash.net>
To:
Debbie Keating <udgcs @txcyber.com>
Date:
12/1/99 7:38PM
Subject:
Campus Park Garbage Containers
Debbie,
I met with Mark Smith this afternoon and we mutualy agreed on the
location /style of the garbage collection containers. It was decided to
utilize the 300 gal containers which will be placed on a 8'x8' concrete
pads. Each container will service 6 townhouse units. The location of
these containers is indicated on the sketches provided this afternoon
and described briefly as follows:
Phase IA - A single container located next to townhouse unit no. 7 and
directly behind the 8x10 patio.
Phase 2 - Three containers servicing 16 townhouse units (no's 13 -28)
clustered together and located in front of unit 17 near the cul -de -sac.
Phae IB - A single container located next to townhouse unit no. 4 and
directly behind the 8x10 patio.
Blake
I /ez
�
y
CC: "McCully, Sabina" <smccully @ci.college- station.tx.us >, Natalie Ruiz
<nruiz @ci.college- station.tx.us >, <msmith @ci.college - station.tx.us>
GEOMATERIALS INVESTIGATION
HOLLEMANIWELSH ADDITION
COLLEGE STATION TEXAS
GEOMATERIALS INVESTIGATION
HOLLEMAN /WELSH ADDITION
College Station Texas
Report
To
BA CATHEY INC
College Station Texas
ma
BME, INC. /GeoMatenals Englneenng
505 Church / College Station Texas 77840
Tel: 409/846 -2781 Fax: 409/846 -0116
INTRODUCTION
General. The investigation reported herein is an analysis of the subsurface conditions at
the site of a proposed residential facility to be located east of the intersection of Holleman
and Welsh in College Station, Texas as indicated on Plate 1. The investigation was
performed and authorized in accordance with a discussion via telecom with Mr Cathey on
14 December 1999.
Project Characteristics. The proposed project characteristics consist of ten maximum
two - storied buildings with a wood and masonry veneer. Building loads are expected to be
light to moderate and transmitted to the foundation by wooden frames. The surrounding
support pavement will be either asphalt or concrete. There may be a full - masonry
fireplaces but a swimming pool is not anticipated.
Objectives. The objectives of this investigation were to explore soil conditions by
advancing exploration soundings and to determine the engineering properties of the
foundation soils. The resulting information was then used to develop recommendations
to assist in determining geotechnical design requirements.
Report Format. The following sections of this report present a description of the field and
analytical phases of the investigation. All developed information is presented on
attached illustrations. The final sections of the report text present a discussion of the
results and the geotechnical design and construction recommendations.
BME, INC. /GeoAlaterials
FIELD EXPLORATION PROGRAM
General. Information was determined at discrete exploration points at the locations
shown on Plate 2 and established in the field by the exploration crew. The specific
location of each point was determined using a GPS satellite navigation system. The
readings using the Magellan 2000 system have an accuracy of 5 feet for latitude,
longitude and elevation.
Electric Cone Sounding. Stratigraphic conditions were explored by advancing two
electric cone soundings to a maximum depth of 26.0 feet. The soundings were conducted
with the aid of a truck - mounted hydraulic rig and an electric cone penetrometer system.
The tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D 3441 procedural guidelines by
hydraulically pushing the penetrometer at one -meter intervals at an approximate rate of
2 cm /sec. The penetrometer consisted of a 60- degree cone with an extended area of 5 sq
cm and a friction sleeve with a surface area of 100 sq cm. Data acquisition and data
reduction was facilitated by use of a field computer and integrated graphics and data
processing software. A continuous record of advancement rate, tip resistance, sleeve
friction and soil resistivity was recorded. Soil classifications and plasticity characteristics
were determined using standard statistical data averaging techniques for each foot
interval in accordance with correlation studies of friction ratio and the Unified Soil
Classification System.
Water Level Observations. Water level observations were made during field operations
and are considered to be fairly reliable in sandy soils but may not be accurate in
impervious soils. Factors that may influence the water level observations include
seasonal variations, temperature, naturally occurring electrolytes, and rainfall
conditions. Subsurface water conditions as determined during this investigation are
discussed in a subsequent section of this report.
Data Presentation. The data developed from the GPS system and from the field
exploration program is presented in graphical and tabular form on the Materials Logs. A
Key to Soil Classification used on the logs is presented on Plate 3. The Materials Logs
are illustrated on Plates 4 and 5.
BME, INC. /GeoAJaterials Engineering
3
SITE CONDITIONS
Topography and Vegetation. The topography and vegetation is consistent with a
bottomland characteristic. The surface is relatively flat and drainage is fairly poor.
Vegetation generally consists of native grasses and a few junipers, mesquite and
yaupons.
Geology. The proposed site is located within the outcropping of the Claiborne Group of
the Eocene Epoch of the Cenozoic Era. The Claiborne Group consists of the Yegua,
Crockett, Sparta, Weches, Queen City and Reklaw Formations. These Formations are
generally characterized as consisting of strong clays with ledges of silica cemented
sandstones or severely weathered shales to fine grained sands with locally carbonaceous
laminations. Modifying descriptors include calcareous, glauconitic, lignitic, fossiliferous,
blocky and cross - bedded or laminated.
Stratigraphy. The data from the electric cone soundings were reduced and analyzed to
develop soil strength, materials and cohesion characteristics. A correlation of these
physical soil characteristics was then used to develop an interpretative soil stratigraphy
in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The following profile presents
the resulting generalized stratigraphy.
TABLE A - Soil Stratigraphy
Stratum
Depth, ft
From To
Description
I
0.0
11.0
Low Plasticity Clay (CL)
II
11.0
13.5
Clayey Sand (SC)
III
13.5
17.5
Low Plasticity Clay (CL)
IV
17.5
26.0
High Plasticity Clay (CH)
Stratigraphy Limitation. The profile given above was developed from a generalization of
the subsurface conditions encountered at the exploration locations. It should be noted
3
that, variations from the profile might be found to exist. However, subsequent
recommendations for design and construction contained in this report were developed
assuming that the above conditions are continuous throughout the area under
consideration. Should the conditions be found to vary during construction from the
BME, INC. /GeoMaterlals
4
generalization, BME, Inc. should be notified in order to evaluate the effect of the
variation on the recommendations presented herein.
Subsurface Water Conditions. Soil resistivity readings were used to estimate the depth
to groundwater based on significant variations in resistivity with depth. The results of
the data analysis indicate that the average depth to groundwater is 10 feet below existing
grade.
BME, INC.lUeolbfatelials Engineering
FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Foundation Soils. The foundation soils at the site consist of strong, highly consolidated
clays that have a low expansion potential. Using a modified expansion potential
procedure developed by McDowell, a potential vertical rise (PVR) of 0.5 in. was computed.
This value is significant and indicates that the potential for soil shrinkage or swelling is
not significant in the foundation design. Accordingly, the following foundation design
recommendations are offered for consideration.
Reinforced Slab. A standard nominal 5 -in.- thick, reinforced concrete slab -on -grade may
be used to support the proposed structure. The slab should be founded upon a minimum
18 -in., uniformly thick, building pad that has been constructed using structural or
natural fill materials. Stiffening of the slab should be provided by minimum 14 -in. -wide
grade beams that have a minimum perimeter and interior depth of 24 in. The maximum
spacing of the interior grade beams should be 20 ft each way. Spacing of the grade beams
should also consider the building plan geometry. Additional beams or pinned connections
will need to be considered if the plan geometry deviates from a simple rectangle.
Reinforcing Steel. Reinforcing steel in each grade beam should consist of Grade 60 steel
with No. 3 stirrups spaced at maximum intervals of 18 in. and at least six No. 6 rebars;
three top and bottom. Prebent 2 ft X 2 ft "L" shaped No. 6 rebars may be used to tie the
grade beam reinforcement at all intersections. The slab should have centered reinforcing
steel consisting of No. 3 rebar at a maximum spacing of 14 in. centers each way and
supported by plastic chairs. The reinforcement beneath the fireplaces may consist of two
grade beam cages tied together top and bottom with No. 6 rebars at a maximum spacing
of 6 in. centers each way. Concrete placement control, grade beam excavation, and
inspection of reinforcement installation should be performed by the Geotechnical
Engineer to insure compliance with design requirements.
BME, INC.IGeoMaterials
PAVEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
General. A design procedure modified from the TxDOT long -life pavement design method
was used to develop pavement thickness requirements for flexible and rigid pavement
designs. In this procedure, the anticipated traffic loads and the load carrying
characteristics of the subgrade soils are used as input to a microcomputer program. By
limiting the edge failure conditions, the required pavement thicknesses are computed.
The following paragraphs present the given design factors used in the analysis and the
resulting pavement design recommendations.
Traffic Conditions. The anticipated traffic conditions for the proposed facility were based
on an assumed average traffic count of 2000 and a truck traffic percentage of 4. These
values, together with a 25 -year design period, yielded 18 -kip Equivalent Single Axle
Loads of 255,000.
Subgrade Classification. The subgrade classification of the proposed subgrade soils was
established based on a correlation between soil indexes and soil historical strength data.
Specifically, the soil indexes developed for the assumed subgrade soils for this
investigation were compared to the indexes of other soils whose soil moduli and THD
triaxial values were previously determined. The comparison produced a soil modulus of
123 pci and a THD triaxial classification of 3.9.
Pavement Thickness Requirements. Using the assumed traffic conditions and the
subgrade classifications given above, the required total pavement thicknesses were
computed. The following tables give the minimum required thickness for the various
pavement materials and traffic conditions.
TABLE B.1 - Pavement Thickness Schedule - Asphalt
Thickness, in. Material Description
1.5 Hot Mix Asphaltic Concrete
6.0 Compacted Base Course
6.0 Compacted Structural Fill or
Subgrade
13.5 Total Constructed Pavement
BME, INCJGeoAlaterials Engineering
TABLE B.2 - Pavement Thickness Schedule - Concrete
Thickness, in. Material Description
5.0 Reinforced Concrete Surface
6.0 Compacted Structural Fill
11.0 Total Constructed Pavement
Pavement Type Recommendation. The concrete design section is recommended for areas
that will be subject to high volume traffic loads or truck traffic. Areas where turning
actions occur frequently or where trash dumpsters are located should also be paved with
concrete. The asphalt design section may be used for standard parking areas or to
support light to medium traffic loads. Typical pavement cross - sections are illustrated on
Plate 6.
BME., INC.A,'eo Materials Engineering
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Site Preparation. In order to reduce the potential detrimental effects on the proposed
structural surfaces, the surficial vegetation and all major root systems beneath the
surfaces should be excavated. All exposed surfaces should then be proof -rolled and any
soft or weak areas removed and replaced with compacted natural materials or structural
fill. Depending upon design grade, the exposed subgrade beneath the facility should be
graded reasonably level. The cut and fill of the natural soils should be balanced with
respect to a uniformly thick building pad. Consideration should be given to grading the
building pad and the surrounding area to insure adequate drainage. Water should not be
allowed to pond next to a foundation.
Structural Fill Material Selection. The following criteria should be observed during
selection of structural fill.
Structural fill material placed beneath the proposed structural surfaces for the
purpose of replacing excavated material or for raising grade, should consist of a
low plasticity material with an effective plasticity index between 7 and 15.
2. A material containing an excessive amount of silt or having 30 to 50 percent
passing a No. 200 sieve should not be used.
Material Compaction. The following criteria should be observed during placement of all
fill.
Compaction characteristics of all fill should be verified by in -place density tests
on each 6 in. thick lift. The tests should be performed at an average rate of one
test for every 5,000 sq ft of plan area or one test for every 250 ft of trench in non-
structural areas and every 100 ft of trench in structural areas or roadways.
2. Density for structural fill and fill beneath structural surfaces should be at least
95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the standard Proctor
compaction test, ASTM D 698.
3. Compaction of all fill should be at a moisture content equal to optimum up to a
maximum of 4 percent above optimum in lifts not to exceed 6 in. compacted
thickness.
BME, INC. /GeoNlaterials Engineering
9
Structural Concrete. The following specifications should be employed during the
construction of the recommended structure.
1. The concrete used for the construction should consist of a mix that has been
shown to comply with the requirements of ACI 214 and ACI 301, section 3.9.2.1.
2. Submitted mix designs should indicate that the aggregates have been tested in
accordance with ASTM C 33 within a time period of not -to- exceed 1 year.
3. If fly ash is used in the concrete, the replacement percentage should not exceed
20 percent of the total cementitious material. However, fly ash should not be
used in concrete that is placed during the months of December through March.
4. The concrete should have a minimum 28 -day design compressive strength of
3000 psi as determined in accordance with ASTM C 39 or C 109. A test set,
consisting of at least 3 cylinders, should be cast during each placement. The
cylinders should be cast at a rate of one set for every 50 cu yds of concrete if total
concrete placement is less than 200 cu yds. If the total concrete placement is
greater than 200 cu yds, then the rate should be one set for every 100 cu yds of
concrete placed. At least one set should be cast during each placement day.
5. Water may be added to the mix at the job site by an experienced materials
technologist in order to develop design workability but only to the extent that
the water /cement ratio does not exceed 0.5 lb/lb or the maximum permitted by
the concrete mix design.
6. Verification of compliance with the above specifications should be performed by
the GeoMaterials Engineer.
Pavement Specifications. The pavement design recommendations presented in the
pavement recommendations section were developed assuming that the various materials
would comply with or be constructed in accordance with the following specifications.
1. Compaction of the natural soils or a structural fill meeting the requirements
presented above should be at a moisture content equal to or less than 4 percent
above optimum moisture. Density should be at least 95 percent of the maximum
dry density as determined by the standard Proctor compaction test, ASTM D
698.
2. The base course should consist of crushed limestone base material meeting the
requirements of TxDOT Item 248, Type A Grade 2 specifications. Compaction of
the base material should be at or near the optimum moisture content to a
density of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the
modified Proctor compaction test ASTM D 1557.
3. The hot mix asphaltic concrete surface course should comply with TxDOT Item
340, Type D specification. Exceptions should include a minimum Marshall
stability of 1700 lbs, a maximum flow of 0.16 in. and a compacted density of 92
BME, INC. /GeoA1ate.rials Engineering
to 96 percent of the maximum theoretical density as determined in accordance
with ASTM D 1559.
4. The concrete should comply with the specifications recommended in the
structural concrete section.
5. The concrete pavement sections should be divided by a system of contraction
joints at a maximum center -to- center spacing of 20 ft each way. The joints
should either be "keyed" or "sawed ". Expansion joints should replace the
contraction joints at a maximum center -to- center spacing of 60 ft and be "slip -
doweled" with dowels placed 18 in. apart.
6. Steel reinforcement for the proposed sections should consist of No. 3 bar steel
reinforcement on 14 in. maximum centers each way. Plastic chairs should be
used to insure that the reinforcement is centered within the slab section.
10
I1
GENERAL COMMENTS
Investigation Scope. The exploration and analysis of the soil conditions reported herein
are considered in sufficient detail and scope to form a reasonable basis for the
geotechnical design. The recommendations submitted are based upon the available soil
information and the given preliminary design details. Any revision in the plans for the
proposed facility from those enumerated in this report should be brought to the attention
of the Geotechnical Engineer so that a determination may be made relative to possible
changes in the geotechnical recommendations.
Design Review. After the plans and specifications are complete, it is recommended that
the Geotechnical Engineer be given the opportunity to review the final design and
specifications to insure that the recommendations were properly interpreted and
implemented. It is further recommended that the Geotechnical Engineer be retained to
provide testing and observation services for the project.
Warranty. The Geotechnical Engineer warrants that the findings, recommendations,
specifications, or professional advice contained herein have been made after being
prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practice in the
field of geotechnical engineering. No other warranty is implied or expressed. Liability is
limited to the total fee received for geotechnical services or limit of liability insurance but
is totally void if any or all of the recommendations given in the paragraph titled "Design
Review" are ignored.
BNTE, INC.lGeo.Ilaterials
12
The following illustrations are attached and complete this report.
Title Plate
Site Location Plan
1
Plan of Exploration
2
Key to Soil Classification
3
Materials Logs
4 & 5
Pavement Cross - sections
6
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please call if we can
be of any further assistance or if we can provide materials testing services during
construction.
Respectfully submitted,
BME, INC. AGE pM tez7als Engineering
F f it
Dr William J B ger, PE *° . * t�
`s .... WI ... BERG`R
M. J
s
Project No.: 99 X12. 42300
Date: 21 December 1999 a `ss /p/NAL G�Zt
BME. INC. /GeoMa terials Engineerin
SITE LOCATION PLAN
Holleman Welsh Addition
K
Strmft98
Copyright ®1988 -1897, Microsoft Corporation and /or its suppliers. All rights reserved. Please visit our web site at http: / /maps.expedia.com. Page 1
BME Inc. /Geollfaterials Engineering
HOLLEMAN DRIVE
NTS
•
S -2
a
•
S -1
PLAN OF EXPLORATION
HOLLEMAN/WELSH ADDITION
College Station Texas
Plate 2
BME Inc. IC eoAbiterials Engineering
KEY TO SYMBOLS & CLASSIFICATION
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS
COARSE
GRAINED
SOILS
More than
half of material
is greater than
No. 200
sieve.
GRAVELS
More than
half of
coarse
fraction
is larger
than #4
sieve.
Clean
Little
or no
Fines
GW
Well graded gravels with little or no fines.
GP
�
'.r
,
Poorly graded gravels with little or no fines.
Clean
Material
with
Fines
GM
Silty gravels or gravel -sand -silt mixtures.
GC
Clayey gravels or gravel- sand -clay mixtures.
SANDS
More than
half of
coarse
fraction
is less
than #4
sieve.
Clean
Little
or no
Fines
SW
Well graded sands with little or no fines.
SP
Poorly graded sands with little or no fines.
Clean
Material
with
Fines
SM
Silty Sands or sand -silt mixtures.
$C
Clayey Sands or sand clay mixtures.
FINE
GRAINED
SOILS
More than
half of material
is less than
No. 200
sieve.
SILTS
AND
CLAYS
Liquid
Limit
less
than 50
ML
HIIIH
LLLLLLLLI
Silts, sandy or clayey silts.
CL
Low to medium plasticity silty or sandy clays.
Liquid
Limit
greater
than 50
CH
High plasticity clays.
OH
Organic clays or silts.
PLATE 3
BME Inc. /Geollfaterlals Engineering
MATERIALS LOG NO.: 1
Project: Holleman/Welsh Addition Date: 21- Dec -99
Location: Lat 30d35'59" Lon 96dl9'38" Type: Electric Cone
Depth Material Description Tip Resistance Friction Ratio Resistivity Liquid Plastic
ft Class Elev: 368 ft ksf % Kohms Limit Index
0
s
1
1s
--•
20
2s
30
35
IOW PLASTICITY CLAY (CL)
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
SILTY SAND (Slut)
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
LOW PLASTICITY CLAY (CL)
HIGH PLASTICITY CLAY (CM
0
50
100
750
310
SO
300
750
0
,
5
10
15
31
0
5
10
15
3)
16
19
3
6
13
43
41
44
40
3
5
0
24
22
25
21
-
_
_
_
r
I
--
_
PLATE 4
BME Inc. /GeoMaterials Engineering
MATERIALS LOG NO.: 2
Project: Holleman/Welsh Addition Date: 21- Dec -99
Location: Lat 300604" Lon 96d19'37" Type: Electric Cone
Depth Material Description Tip Resistance Friction Ratio Resistivity Liquid Plastic
ft Class Elev: 368 ft ksf % Kohms Limit Index
0
--•
s
° 10
15
25
30
35
--
LOW PLASTICITY CLAY (CL)
HIGH PLASTICnY CLAY (CIS
IOW PLASTICITY CLAY (CL)
CLAYEY SAND (SC)
LOW PLASnCnY CLAY (CL)
HIGH PLASTICnY CLAY (CH)
LOW PLASTIcnY CLAY (CL)
0
50
100
150
270
250
300
350
0
5
10
15
21
0
5
10
15
21
6
10
4
29
24
11
11
20
39
32
A
1 4
24
36
46
38
47
34
34
13
9
6
21
15
1
9
19
27
20
27
17
17
-
rt
i
-
-
_
_
�
i
-Lill!
J
PLATE 5
RME Inc. /GooMatorials Engmoerzng
CONCRETE SECTION
5 in. Concrete
6 in. Compacted Structural Fill
Structural fill should consist of a low plasticity material with a plasticity index between 7 and 15 and should
not have a percentage of material passing a No. 200 sieve between 30 to 50. Compaction should be at a
moisture content equal to or less than 4 percent above optimum moisture. Density should be at least 95
percent of the maximum dry density as determined by the standard Proctor compaction test, ASTM D698.
The concrete should have a minimum 28 -day design compressive strength of 3500 psi as
determined in accordance with ASTM C 39 or C 109. The concrete pavement sections should
be divided by a system of contraction joints at a maximum center -to- center spacing of 20 ft each way.
The joints should either be "keyed" or "sawed ". Expansion joints should replace the contraction
joints at a maximum center -to- center spacing of 60 ft and be "slip- doweled" with #5 smooth bars placed
18 in. apart. Steel reinforcement for the proposed sections should consist of # 3 rebar steel
reinforcement on 14 in. maximum centers each way. Plastic chairs should be used to insure that
the reinforcement is centered within the slab section.
ASPHALT SECTION
1.5 in. HMAC
6 in. Lmstn Base
6 in. Compacted Subgrade
Compaction of the subgrade soils should be in accordance with the density requirements presented
above for structural fill.
The base course should consist of crushed limestone base material meeting the requirements of
TxDOT Item 248, Type A Grade 2 specifications. Compaction of the base material should be at or near
the optimum moisture content to a density of at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density as
determined by the modified Proctor compaction test ASTM D 1557.
The hot mix asphaltic concrete surface course should comply with TxDOT Item 340, Type D specification.
Exceptions should include a minimum Marshall stability of 17001bs, a maximum flow of 0.16 in. and a
compacted density of 92 to 96 percent of the maximum theoretical density as determined in accordance
with ASTM D 1559.
PAVEMENT CROSS - SECTIONS
HOLLEMAN/WELSH ADDITION
College Station Texas
Plate 6