The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About16 DP College Station Shopping Center Plaza 05-46 2704 Texas Ave SCITY OF C OLLEGE STATI ON Planning d-Drodopm ent Services SITE LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Brandywine Subdivision Lots 1, 3 &4 , Block 1 (College Station Shopping Plaza) DATE OF ISSUE: 10/04/05 OWNER: David Cotrell Investments 7505 Nightmeadow Houston, Texas 77063 TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT: SPECIAL CONDITIONS: DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PERMIT NO . 05-46 FOR AREAS OUTSIDE THE SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA RE: CHAPTER 13 OF THE COLLEGE STATION CITY CODE SITE ADDRESS: 2704 Texas Avenue S DRAINAGE BASIN: Bee Creek Trib. "A" VALID FOR 9 MONTHS CONTRACTOR: Full Development Permit All construction must be in compliance with the approved construction plans All trees required to be protected as part of the landscape plan must be completely barricaded in accordance with Section 7.5 .E., Landscape/Streetscape Plan Requirements of the City's Unified Development Ordinance, prior to any operations of this permit. The cleaning of equipment or materials within the drip line of any tree or group of trees that are protected and required to remain is strictly prohibited. The disposal of any waste material such as , but not limited to, paint, oil, solvents, asphalt, concrete , mortar, or other harmful liquids or materials within the drip line of any tree required to remain is also prohibited . TCEQ PHASE II RULES IN EFFECT . The Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to prevent silt and debris from leaving the immediate construction site in accordance with the approved erosion control plan as well as the City of College Station Drainage Policy and Design Criteria . If it is determined the prescribed erosion control measures are ineffective to retain all sediment onsite, it is the contractors responsibility to implement measures that will meet City, State and Federal requirements . The Owner and/or Contractor shall assure that all disturbed areas are sodden and establishment of vegetation occurs prior to removal of any silt fencing or hay bales used for temporary erosion control. The Owner and/or Contractor shall also insure that any disturbed vegetation be returned to its original condition , placement and state . The Owner and/or Contractor shall be responsible for any damage to adjacent properties, city streets or infrastructure due to heavy machinery and/or equipment as well as erosion, siltation or sedimentation resulting from the permitted work . In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of College Station, measures shall be taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion, and sedimentation shall not be deposited in city streets, or existing drainage facilities . I hereby grant this permit for development of an area outside the special flood hazard area . All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer in the development permit application for the above named project and all of the codes and ordinances of the City of College Station that apply. miv~~ .-- Owner/ Agent/Contractor ID -Ob -0~ Date Date $ ~-Aug 30 05 03:10p Turner Engineer Inc. 214-522-7140 p.2 .. vr CITY OF COLLEGE. STATION l'/.:rarmg 0-Dewl.aJm111U Sm•irtr DEVELOPMENT PERMIT MINIMUM SUBMllTAL REQUIREMENTS $200 development permit fee. $600.00 Public lnfrastructure Inspection Fee if applicable . (This fee is payable if construction of a public waterline, sewerline, sidewalk, street or drainage facilities is involved.} _if. Drainage and erosion control plan, with supporting Drainage Report two (2) copies ea1,;1 \.t-lo'f ~19-U>) Notice of Intent (N.0.1.) if disturbed area is greater than 5 aaes (~ ~'A.~o) Date of "Required PreappJicatlon Conference: _________________ _ .. (Required for areas of special flood hazard). LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lo~ \, -;, '4-4 , ?Jlol~\ %AA1.>9'1W\t.>f. S\>B~"\S\OW APPLICANT'S I NFORMA Tl ON {Primary Contact for the Project): -l.."'1A \l"fCtc> Name \1'£.',\l\i.L.. ¥£.!'~fr -~~ . .JE,_:il0'2-f. AtLtHT~~ E-Mail M~AQ., ~i-J'Z@. \WA,££.. Street Address Ill\ t.\o~n\ 'a>+> llli&T \ $1>rrf.. 9aoO City Ho\)"!,~ State _T...._j. ______ _ Zip Code 11 OQ~ Phone Number J(b 8b41\ llo"I_, Fax Number _1~~""--'8~'.._f\ .......... 5 ...... 5:.....a;J ..... ?>.__ ___ _ PROPERTY OWNER'S INFORMATION: Name DAv\1'.> CouM.u-\t-)~,.ME.....,\2 Street Address 1-So? \!lC.i\\Y\iAOO..V City ~\J(,lPtJ State _\._.j..::--_ __,_ __ Zip Code 110b~ Phone Number 1\2 1&'2 $05'2.. Fax Number _1~•'?_'7_?:\.-......-4 ..... S~:; ..... 7 ___ _ .A~CI llTEC"r OR ENGlNEER'S INFORMATION : M£p/~-r~Cf /o.\1L(.. Name ~iM 'fu~ &.lttu.>E.~'1--~ E-Mail _=.)_.l\!;ic..;~'-'-~~~___,;;::;e~.)f._lf=--=-·'-'U>_1"'\__._ __ _ Street Address ~400 ezt_~e:~'I O@-\\lE, City_ .. \W.~t.Ar.! o pf\g.¥. State _...D.-"'------Zip Code :t5~ Fax Number 2. \4 S2.2. 0%1 Phone Number 2..\4-$2.'2-:JlAD Application is hereby made for the following development specific sltei\vaterway alteratlons : ACKNOWLEDGMENTS : '·-~ W!ie1. hereby acknowledge or affirm that: The information and conclus1ons contained ln the above plans and supporti current requi rements of the City of College Station , Texas City Code, Cha t documents comp'y with the 3 and its associated Drainage Po licy and Design Standards. Property Owner(s) 6113/03 -------------- ?£ 1 of2 ti ~·Aug 30 05 03:10p Turner Engineer Inc. 214 -522 -7140 p.3 " As a condition of approval of this permit application, I agree to construct the Improvements proposed in this application according to these documents and the requirements of Chapter 13 of the College Station City Code Contractor CERTIFICATIONS: A. I, J (~ c.ertify that any nonresidential structure on or proposed to be on this site as part of this application is design to prevent damage to the structure or Its contents as a result of flooding from the 100-year sto Engineer Date B. I, I pf , certify that the finished floor elevation of the lowest floor , lnduding any basement, of any residential stru , proposed as part of this application is at or above the base flood elevation established i atest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study and maps, as amended . Engineer Date C. I, IP, certify that the alterations or development covered by this permit shall not diminish the flood- carrying capacity of the waterway adjoining or crossing this pennitted site and that such alterations or development are consistent with requirements of the City of College Station City Code, Chapter 13 concerning encroachments of floodways and of floodways fringes. Dat e D. I, J~. do certify that the proposed alterations do not raise the level of the 100 year flood above elevation stablished in the latest Federal Insurance Administration Flood Hazard Study. Engineer Date Conditions or comments as part of approval:--------------------- In accordance with Chapter 13 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of COiiege Station, measures shal l be taken to insure that debris from construction, erosion, and sed imentation shall not be deposited In city streets, or existing drainage facilities. All development shall be in accordance with the plans and specifications submitted to and approved by the City Engineer for the above named project. All of the applicable codes and ordinances of the City of College Station shall apply. 6113103 2of2 t : .. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY College Station Shopping Plaza AdditiOns FM 2818 and Texas Avenue College Station, Texas Prepared for: DAVID COTTRELL INVESTMENTS C/O HEIGHTS VENTURE ARCHITECTS Houston, Texas Prepared by: TERRA CON HOUSTON, TEXAS Terracon Project No.: 92055-384 July 2005 July 19, 2005 ·lrerracon David Cottrell Investments c/o Mr. Mike Kravetz Heights Venture Architects 1111 North Loop West Houston, Texas 77008 Re: Geo technical Engineering Study College Station Shopping Plaza Additions FM 2818 and Texas Avenue College Station, Texas Terracon Project No. 92055-384 Dear Mr. Kravetz: Consulting Engineers & Scientists Terracon Consultants , l.nc . 11555 Clay Road, Suite 100 Houston , Texas 77043 Phone 713 .690 .8989 Fax 713 .690 .8787 www.terracon.com Enclosed is Terracon Consultant, Inc. (Terracon) report of the geotechnical engineering study conducted for the above referenced project in College Station, Texas. We trust that this report is responsive to your project needs. Please contact us if you have any questions or if we can be of further assistance. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project and look forward to providing additional geotechnical engineering and construction materials testing services in the future. Sincerely, TERRA CON Eeshani Sood, E.I.T. Staff Engineer ~Sent r,P .E. Senior Geote ·cal Consultant Copies Submitted: ( 4) Delivering Success for Clients and Employees Since 1965 More Than 70 Offices Nationwide I . I I • David Cottrell Investments c/o Heights Venture Architects Terracon Project No. 92055-384 lrerracon TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... ~ .............................................. I PROJECT DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................. ; ................. I SCOPE OF SERVICES ............................. .-.............................................................. ~ ........................ I SITE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES ........................................................................................... I Field Exploration ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................ ; ........................................ 2 Sample Disposal. .......................................................................................................................................... 2 · SITE CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 3 Surface Conditions .................................................................................................................. ~ ................... 3 Site Geology ..................................................... ; ........................................................................................... 3 Subsurface Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 3 Groundwater Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 4 ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS ............................. -......................................................... 4 Geotechnical Considerations ................................................................................................ ; ..................... 4 Foundation System ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Drilled and Underreamed Footings ........................................................................................................... 5 Floor Slabs ................................................................................................................................................... 6 Grade Beamsffilt-Wall Panels ................................................................................................................... 7 Lateral Earth Pressures .............................................................................................................................. 8 Foundation Construction ............................................................................................................................ 8 F oundation Construction Monitoring ....................................................................................................................... 9 Earthwork .................................................................................................................................................... 9 Wet Weather Conditions ........................................................................................................................................ 10 Drainage ..................................................................................................................................................... 11 GENERAL COMMENTS .................................................................................. .-............................. 11 APPENDIX Plan of Borings .................................................................................... A-1 Logs of Borings .............................................................. A-2 through A-7 Key to Soil Classification and Symbols ............................................... A-8 David Cottrell Investments c/o Heights Venture Architects Terracon Project No. 92055-384 INTRODUCTION .lrerracon This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering study for the proposed College Station Shopping Plaza Additions in College Station, Texas. This projec.t was authorized by Mr. David Cottrell of David Cottrell Investments through signature of our "Agreement For Services" on July 6, 2005. The scope of work was performed in general accordance with Terracon Proposal No. H05-440, dated July 6, 2005. PROJECT DESCRIPTION This project involves the proposed construction of three single-story retail/restaurant buildings and a canopy on an ex isting retail store at a site located at the northwestern corner of the intersection of FM 2818 and Texas Avenue in College Station, Texas , We understand that two of the buildings are planned to range in size from approximately 7 ,000 to 8,000 square feet in size and the third building is appreciably smaller. Our services will not address pav ement rehabilitation . SCOPE OF SERVICES Our s cope of work for this project consisted of: 1. Drilling test borings at selected locations within the project site to evaluate subsurface stratigraphy and groundwater conditions. 2 . Performing geotechni cal laboratory tests on reco v ered samples to evaluate the physical and engineering properties of the strata encountered. 3. Engineering analysis to develop design and construction recommendations with respect to: • Site , subgrade, and fill preparation ; and • Foundation depth and allowable bearing pressures SITE EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Field Exploration Subsurface conditions were evaluated by drilling a total of 6 test borings in the proposed building areas . The borings B-2 and B-3 were drilled to a depth of about 25 feet each and the remaining borings to a . depth of about 20 feet each. The three to four-inch nominal diameter borings were drilled with continuous flight auger drilling equipment. 1 j . David Cottrell Investments c/o Heights Venture Architects Terracon Project No. 92055-3.84 lrerracon The borings were drilled at the approximate locations shown on the Plan of Borings, Page A-1 of the Appendix . The borings were located by measuring from existing/adjacent features and property boundaries and estimating right angles without the use of surveying equipment. Boring depths were measured from the existing ground surface at the time of our field activities. The Logs of Borings, presenting the subsurface soil descriptions, type of sampling used, and additional field data , are presented on Pages A-2 through A-7 of the Appendix . The Symbol Key Sheet, which defines the terms and descriptive symbols used on the logs, is presented on Page A-8. Soil samples were recovered using thin-walled, open-tube samplers (Shelby-tubes). All samples were removed from samplers in the field , visuall y classified, and appropriately sealed in sample containers to preserve their in-situ moisture contents. Pocket penetrometer tests were performed on samples of cohesive soils in the field to serve as a general measure of consistency. Laboratory Testing Samples obtained during the field program were visually classified in the laboratory by a geotechnical engineer and/or a senior technician. A testing program was conducted on selected samples , as directed by the geotechnical engineer, to aid in classification and evaluation of engineering properties required for analyses. Results of the laboratory tests are presented on the Logs of Borings, located on Pages A-2 through A-7 of the Appendix, and are discussed in the following section. Sample Disposal All samples were returned to our laboratory in Houston, Texas . Samples not tested in the laboratory will be stored for a period of 60 days subsequent to submittal of this report and will be discarded after this period, unless we are notified otherwise. 2 I . I David Cottrell Investments c/o Heights Venture Architects Terracon Project No. 92055-384 SITE CONDITIONS Surface Conditions lrerracan The boreholes are located at the existing College Station Shopping Plaza. The site is relatively lev el and consists of existing buildings with surrounding pavement. Site Geology · The site for the proposed structures is located on the Yegua Formation of early to late Eocene age . The thickness of the Yegua Formation in the general site area is about 750 to 1000 ft . The soils near the surface are primarily clays sometimes containing silt or sand with ironstone concretions. The clays are highly ov erconsolidated and strong with seams of lignite in some areas. Subsurface Conditions The particular subsurface stratigraphy, as determined from our field and laboratory programs , is shown in detail on the Logs of Borings in the Appendix. A review of the boring logs indicates about 0 .5 to 2 inches of asphalt surface (HMAC)) then 2 to 4 inches of what appears to be compacted , re-cycled asphalt, and about 4 to 8 inches of base material that appears to be a mixture of sand and gravel. Boring 1 revealed about one feet of fill below the pavement section but Borings 2 and 3 located near the north end of the existing retail building show fill to depths of 8 and 11 feet. Borings 4, 5 and 6 shows fill to 4 feet depth. Below the fill soils, stiff to hard silty clay and clay soils were present to the maximum explored depth of about 25 feet. The fill observed at the site mainly consists of silty clay and clay soils . These soils typically exhibit low to very high potential for volumetric changes due to moisture conditions , as indicated by the liquid limit ranging from 36 to 87 percent with plasticity index from 18 to 54 percent. Pocket penetrometer readings of approximately 1.0 to 4.5 tons per square foot (tsf) were recorded . An undrained shear strength from an unconfined compressive strength test was measured to be approximately 800 to 1,900 pounds per square foot (psf). The in-situ moisture contents varied from 21 to 36 percent. Cemented sand and clay was observed in the fill indicating lime treated soils. 3 · David Cottrell Investments c/o Heights Venture Architects Terracon Project No. 92055-384 lrerracon The natural silty clays and clays underlying the fill soils were encountered at depths between about 2 to 11 feet below the existing grade. These soils exhibit moderately low to very high plasticity with measured liquid limits varying from 46 to 78 percent and plasticity indices varying from 24 to 47 percent. Moisture conte!1ts range from 19 to 3 7 percent. Measured undrained shear strengths from unconfined compressive strength tests varied from about 3,300 to 5,700 pounds per square foot (psf). Measured pocket penetrometer values of the natural soils varied from 1.5 to 4.5 tons per square foot (tsf) indicating stiff to hard soils. Groundwater Conditions The borings were dry augered to their completion depths in an effort to evaluate groundwater levels. Groundwater was not observed in the borings during our field inv estigation. However, it should be noted that groundwater conditions may fluctuate seasonally with climatic changes and should be evaluated just prior to construction. ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations are based upon the data obtained in our field and laboratory programs, project information provided to us, and our experience with similar subsurface and site conditions. Geotechnical Considerations Low to very highly expansive fill and native soils are present at this site . This report provides recommendations to remove the fill soils within the building area as well as to help mitigate the shrinkage and expansion potential of the native clayey soils. However, even if these procedures are followed, some movement and possible cracking in the structure should be anticipated. The severity of cracking and other distress such as uneven floor slabs will probably increase if any modification of the site results in excessive wetting or drying of the expansive soils . Further reduction of the risk of distress associated with expansive soils is only feasible if the buildings were to be designed using suspended structural slabs with the structural loads supported by drilled shafts terminated below the active zone. Terracon can provide recommendations for a structural floor slab system, if requested. 4 l David Cottrell Investments c/o Heights Venture Architects Terracon Project No. 92055-384 Foundation System lrerracon Based upon the field and laboratory data available, along with our previous experience, it is our opinion that a foundation system consisting of drilled and underreamed footings based below the zone of significant seasonal moisture variation would be appropriate for the proposed structures at this site . Recommendations for drilled and underreamed footing foundations are provided below, along with other geotechnical considerations for this project. Drilled and Underreamed Footings The drilled and underreamed footings should be supported in the clay soils at a depth of 14 feet below existing grade. This depth is to place the footings below the depth of significant seasonal moisture variation and below the fill in Boring 3. The footings placed in the building at Borings 2 and 3 should be checked to confirm the footings are placed within the natural clay soil. The footings should be sized for a net dead plus sustained live load bearing pressure of 8,000 psf or a net total load pressure of 12,000 psf, whichever condition governs. These allowable bearing pressures contain factors of safety of about 3 and 2, respectively . It is our opinion that the drilled-and-underreamed footings should be constructed with a bell to shaft ratio of 3: 1. The footings should contain sufficient vertical reinforcing steel throughout the entire shaft length to resist uplift (tensile) forces due to post-construction heave of the clay soils. The magnitude of uplift is difficult to predict and will vary with in-situ moisture contents. For purposes of establishing sufficient reinforcement to resist uplift, the uplift pressures can be approximated by using a uniform uplift pressure of 1,500 psf over the entire perimeter of the shaft above the top of the bell. An underreamed base to shaft ratio of about 3: 1 should provide sufficient resistance to uplift pressures caused by expansion of the clay soils . A minimum clearance of one bell diameter of the larger footing should be provided between the underreams to dev elop the recommended bearing pressures and to control settlements . If a clearance of one diameter cannot be maintained in every case, the above bearing capacities should be reduced by 20 5 I I l l ! I David Cottrell Investments c/o Heights Venture Architects Terracon Project No. 92055-384 ·1rerracon percent for a clearance between one-half and one bell diameters. Underreams closer than a clearance of one half of bell diameters are not recommended. Post construction settlements of the drilled and underreamed shafts should be one inch or less, assuming proper construction practices are followed. Differential settlements may result from variances in subsurface conditions, loading conditions and construction procedures, such a cleanliness of the bearing area or flowing water in the shaft. In general, differential settlements should be on the order of one-half of the total settlement. Uplift pressures on the drilled and undetrearned footings will be resisted by the weight of the foundation plus the weight of any soil directly above the . foundation. For uplift resistance, we recommend total unit weights of about 120 pounds per cubic foot (pct) for soil and 150 pcf for reinforced concrete be utili zed . The ultimate uplift capacity should be reduced by.an appropriate factor of safety to compute allowable uplift capacity. Lateral resistance of drilled footings is primarily developed by passive resistance of the soil against the side of the footing. Due to the presence of fill and possible shrinkage cracks , the lateral resistance of the top 4 feet of soils at the surface should be neglected. For the conditions observed, we recommend that an allowable passive pressure of 1,200 psf be utilized for shafts placed against an undisturbed vertical face of the in-situ soils. The allowable passive pressure contains a safety factor of about 2. Floor Slabs The shallow subsurface soils at this site are generally of low to high plasticity. Based upon Texas Department ofTransportation (TxDOT) Method TEX-124-E and the information developed from our field and laboratory programs, we have computed a value for potential vertical rise (PVR) of about two to two-and-one-half inches for the existing subgrade conditions at the site. Based on our field exploration, the surficial soils in the proposed building areas are expected to consist of clayey soils. These soils possess variable strengths and consistency. To provide uniform soil conditions under the floor slabs, and to reduce the PVR of the sub grade to about one inch or less , we recommend the floor slabs be supported on a minimum 5-foot thick pad of properly placed and compacted select fill soils. 6 David Cottrell Investments c/o Heights Venture Architects Terracon Project No. 92055-384 lrerracon Also, we recomm~nd that the floor slabs be raised above the final exterior grade to provide positiv e drainage away from the building. The fill pad should extend horizontally a f!1inimum distance of 3 feet beyond the edge of the foundation . and be sloped to provide positiv e drainage aw ay from the building. Select fill should be used for all fill applications in the proposed building area. Material and compaction requirements for select fill soils are outlined in the "Earthwork" section. In addition , the near-surface subgrade soils should be prepared as outlined in the "Earthwork" section of this report . Grade Beams/Tilt-Wall Panels Grade beams/tilt-walls associated with the drilled-and-underreamed footings should be designed to span between the footings without subgrade support. Often, a vertical void of about six inches is provided beneath the grade beams in active clayey soils such as those observed at this site. However, recent findings indicate that the voids beneath the grade beams often fill with water, providing moisture to the surrounding sub grade. Therefore, provided that the sub grade is prepared as outlined in the "Floor Slabs" and "Earthwork" subsections, it is our opinion that the grade beams may be constructed without a void at this site . However, due to the underlying clayey soils , nominal upward movement of the grade beams may occur during moisture v ariations of the sub grade . If construction of voids beneath the grade beams is planned, proper construction of the voids and soil retainers is very important. If the cardboard carton system is used on this project, we recommend that the carton form supplier provide, during the initial concrete operations , a representative to instruct the work force on the proper installation methods for both the forms and the concrete. In addition , measures should be implemented to provide proper surface drainage away from the structure to reduce the potential for water to access the voids . For tilt-wall panels, it is our experience that the dead load on the tilt-wall panels resulting from the wall and roofloads is generally large enough to minimize the expansion of the subsurface soil. It is also our experience that during the placement of the panels and subsequent backfill around the panels that a void occurs below the panels . This is due to the panels being placed on piers which normally are 7 l I David Cottrell Investments c/o Heights Venture Architects Terracon Project No. 92055-384 lrerracon slightly above the subgrade. Based on the above discussion, it is our opinion that voids will not be required under the panels. Lateral Earth Pressures The backfill soils adjacent to below grade walls will impose active to at-rest earth pressures against the wall. The backfill should be compacted to 95 percent of the Standard Effort (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density at a moisture content within 2 percent of optimum moisture content. Design lateral earth pressures may be computed using an equivalent fluid weighing 50 pcf for dean sand backfill and 90 pcf for on-site clayey soils or select sandy clay backfill. These pressures do not include hydrostatic pressures nor do they include surcharge forces imposed by construction or vehicular loading. The lateral pressure produced by surcharge may be computed as 50 percent of the vertical surcharge pressure applied as a constant pressure over the full depth of the wall. A 2-foot compacted clay soil should be placed at the top of sand backfill to reduce the amount of infiltration of surface water. Foundation Construction Drilled excavations to a depth of 14 feet below existing grade will be necessary for installation of drilled and underreamed footings for the new structures at this site. The excavations should be performed with equipment capable of providing a relatively clean bearing area. The presence of silty/sandy clays at the. proposed foundation bearing depths at this site may result in S?me sloughing during pier excavation. Thus, the drilling contractor should have casing available in the event that sloughing of the soils causes improperly formed shafts. Groundwater was not observed at this site during drilling of the borings and is not expected to be a major concern for footings bearing at the recommended depth. However, seepage of groundwater into the excavations is possible, and seepage from "perched" water trapped in the near-surface soils may also occur, particularly after a period of wet weather. To reduce the potential for water seepage into the footing excavation and to minimize disturbance to the bearing area, we recommend that concrete and steel be placed as soon as possible after footing excavations are completed and in no case should an excavation be left open · overnight. The concrete placed in the excavations should have a 6-inch slump with a plus or minus one 8 I l David Cottrell Investments c/o Heights Venture Architects Terracon Project No. 92055-384 ·lrerracon inch tolerance. The bottom of each shaft excavation should be free of all loose materials and/or water, and the bearing surface should be evaluated immediately prior to placing concrete. It is our opinion that the underreams can be successfully constructed with a bell to shaft ratio of 3: 1 as . described above . However , if underreams are marginally stable due to water seepage and/or the presence of sandy seams/layers, it may be possible to successfully complete underreamed footings by performing the sequence of construction without interruption , that is, each footing drilled , underreamed, and backfilled with concrete in one continuous operation. The contractor must coordinate the operation very closely to have concrete on site at the time each footing is drilled and underreamed so that no shaft or underream is drilled without concrete standing by, ready to be placed . If extensive bell collapse does occur, straight shaft footings may be installed in lieu of drilled and underreamed footings in isolated problem areas. If straight shaft footings are planned at this site, Terracon should be contacted for additional recommendations . Foundation Construction Monitoring The performance of the foundation system for the proposed structure will be highly dependent upon the quality of construction . Thus , we recommend that fill pad compaction and foundation installation be monitored full time by an experienced Terracon soil technician under the direction of our geotechnical engineer. During footing installation , the base of footings should be monitored to evaluate the subgrade. We would be pleased to develop a plan for compaction and foundation installation monitoring to be incorporated in the overall quality control program. Earthwork Construction areas should be stripped of all asphalt pavements , concrete curbs , vegetation, trees, organics , loose topsoil, and other unsuitable surface materials. Upon removal of the existing asphalt pavements, utilities and landscaped areas and after excavating so that final sub grade elevations are achieved, the exposed sub grade should be proof rolled with a 20-ton roller or equivalent equipment to detect weak zones in the fill subgrade. Weak areas detected during proofrolling, as well as zones of debris and organics should be removed and replaced with soils 9 I David Cottrell Investments c/o Heights Venture Architects Terracon Project No. 92055-384 ·.lrerracon exhibiting similar classification , moisture content , and density as the adjacent in-situ soils. Subsequent to proof rolling, and just prior to pl a cement of fill, the exposed subgrade should be moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 95 percent of the Standard Effort (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density within 2 percent of the optimum moisture content. Proper site drainage should be maintained during construction so that ponding of surface runoff does not occur and cause construction delays and/or inhibit site access . Grade adjustments within the building areas should be accomplished with select fill composed of clean , sandy clay (not a silt) with a plasticity index ranging between 10 and 20 percent. All select fill should be placed on prepared surfaces in lifts not to exceed eight inches loose measure , with compacted thickness not to exceed six inches. The select fill should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the Standard Effort (ASTM D 698) maximum dry density at a moisture content within 2 percent of optimum moisture content. It should be noted that the near surface silty clays may present difficulties in achiev ing the proper compaction and moisture for these soils. It may be necessary to improve these soils by one of the techniques described in the "Wet Weather Considerations" section. Prior to any backfilling operations, samples of the proposed borrow materials should be obtained for laboratory moisture-density testing . The tests will pro vide a basis for evaluation of fill compaction by m.:.place density testing. A qualified soil technician should perform sufficient in-place density tests during the filling operations to evaluate that proper levels of compaction are being attained . Wet Weather Considerations Construction following wet weather periods will likely encounter difficulties due to the wet or soft surface soils becoming a general hindrance to equipment due to rutting and pumping of the soil surface . If the sub grade cannot be adequately compacted to minimum densities as described previously, one of the following measures will be required : 1) removal and replacement with select fill , 2) chemical treatment of the soil to dry and improve the stability of the sub grade , or 3) drying by natural means if 10 I I 1 I David Cottrell Investments c/o Heights Venture Architects Terracon Project No. 92055-384 lrerracon the schedule allo w s . In our experience with similar soils in this area, it is our opinion that chemical treatment is · the most efficient and effective method to increase the supporting value of wet and weak sub grade . Chemical treatment to a depth of 24 inches or greater may be required for the wet/soft subgrade areas . Drainage It is important that positive drainage be established during construction such that water will not pond around the building areas during or following the construction period . Furthermore, the building sub grade should be sealed against water intrusion along trenches and conduits created for utility access ·under the building. The upper portion of utility excavations should be backfilled with properly compacted clayey soils to minimi ze infiltration of surface water. A clay "plug" should be provided in the trench on the exterior of the building to prev ent water from gaining access along the trench to the subgrade beneath the structure. All gr ades must be adjusted to provide positiv e drainage away from the structure . Where pav ing or flatwork abuts the structure , care should be taken that the joint is properly sealed and maintained. Roof drains should discharge on pavement or be extended away from the structure. Ideally, roof drains '• should discharge to storm sewers by closed pipe. GENERAL COMMENTS Terracon should be retained to review the final design plans and specifications so comments can be made regarding interpretation and implementation of our geotechnical recommendations in the design and specifications. Terracon also should be retained to provide testing and observation during excav ation, grading, foundation and construction phases of the project. The analysis and recommendations presented in this report are based upon the data obtained from the borings performed at the indicated locations and from other information discussed in this report . This 11 I I 1 David Cottrell Investments c/o Heights Venture Architects Terracon Project No. 92055-384 lrerracon report does not reflect variations that may occur between borings , across the site , or due to the modifying effects of weather. The nature and extent of such variations may not become evident until during or after construction. If variations appear, we should be immediately notified so that further evaluation arid supplemental recommendations can be prov ided. The scope of services for this project does not include either specifically or by ,implication any environmental or biological (e.g., mold , fungi , and bacteria) assessment of the site or identification or ·· prevention of pollutants , hazardous materials or conditions . If the owner is concerned about the potenti al for such contamination or pollution , other studies should be undertaken . This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of our client for specific application ·to the project discussed and has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No warranties, either express or implied, are intended or made. Site safety, excav ation support , and de w atering requirements are the responsibility of others. In the event that changes in the nature , design, or location of the project as outlined in this report are planned , the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report shall not be considered v alid unless Terracon reviews the changes and either verifies or modifies the conclusions of this report in writing. 12 ' . I j I lrerracon Consu l ti ng Eng ineers & Scientists . APPENDIX I 1 I I l \ •B-3 0 50 100 Scale in Feet LEGEND SOIL • BORING LOCATION ~:i-di !i'- ~:i? ~--3 ~d. lrerracon TERRACON PROJECT NO : 92055-384 (.!) z i5 _J I " ::::!~ ::>o " CD._ i:i~ !:ii ::::!U..: l~i 8~5 ...: . ti V1 !•! C>:O 0 J e (.!)<Xl ~g· V1 x w PLAN OF BORINGS Shopping Plaza Addition Texas Ave. and FM 2818 College Station, Texas A-1 LOG OF BORING PROJECT: College Station Shopping Plaz a Additions BORING NO . 8-1 FM 2818 & Texas Avenue PROJECT NO . 92055-384 College Station , Texas DATE 7-12-05 CLIENT: Heights Venture Architects SURFACE ELEVATION Existing grade Houston , Texas PAGE 1 of 1 FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(S ): ATTERBERG Dry Augered 0 to 20 fee t. ~ LIMITS %l ~ L w GROUNDWATER INFORMATION : ~ >< w 0:: ~ z w > ~ ::::> Borehole was dry during drilling and on completion. lU a w L (/) 0 ~ ~ ~ U5 (/) _J z ~ ~ z w -CD~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 w ~ 0:: ~ _J 1-8u..1-m (.) ~ u., ::; 0 55 :i: E a. 0 0 ::; (3 N I=' -::::> (.) ~ (.'.) (/) CD ~:::ozu lU (/) (.) a i== i== ci (/) !:!:. :::? (/) (/) (/) (/) lU 0:: 0:: ~ en (/) ~ 0 z-5 (/) (/) z w (.'.) (/) w -(/) >-w $:~ii5uw ::::> za J: (/) _J 0 z 0:: a. ~ a~ 0 5 5 (/) 0:: z -0:: -z ~ _J a. ffi~~~ci (/) ::; a. a. ::::> a. lU (/) ::::> u., ::::> a. :::? >-::::> :::? 0:: z _J w 6 <( z:;=a.:a::g 6 0:: 0 z o~O ~ zo :::? LL PL Pl ~ 0 a. DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM a (/) (/) a a. (.) (/) t::. u., (.) ~ PAVING: 2" Asphalt, 3" Crushed Asphalt and 8" 2-~ p 1.5 .R::ise M::it ~ri::i l / FILL: stiff dark g:rav CLAY I--v Stiff to hard gray and tan CLAY P=l.5 31 69 23 46 4-,.. -li ght gray and tan 4 to 8 feet -P=4.5 5>-- -... P=4.5 30 50 24 26 81--i... I--\ill~ Hard brown Silty CLAY ~~ P=4.5 23 98 5.7 4 0 10 -,.. ; -~"' ;"' ; 12 -; -1i1"' Iii Iii I NS ~ 14 -i...lil \illlil 19 - 16 -:: i; i; Iii; \ill 18 I--flp ~45 I--i;lil -dark gray below 18 feet ,___ \illlil 20 \ill I--Boring terminated at 20 feet. 22 -- 24 -- 26 ._;,_ >--- "' 12 28- m -;::: ...., "!l. 30-(.'.) ..j N -STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE REMARKS : "' "' "' T -TXDOT CONE PENET RATION RESISTANCE 11Br1acan "' 0 P -POCKET PENETROMETER RESISTANCE N m u R-PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY al RQD -RO CK QUALITY DESIGNATION J: A-? ! l LOG OF BORING PROJECT: College Station Shopping Plaza Additions FM 2818 & Texas Avenue BORING NO . PROJECT NO. B-2 92055-384 College Station, Texas CLIENT: Heights Venture Architects Houston , Texas DATE SURFACE ELEVATION 7-12-05 Existing grade PAGE 1 of 1 FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(S): t=' \!:. :i:: l-a._ UJ Cl 21-~ I-" t" ..J N t- 4--..\ I~ t'° -..\ t" 61-..J IV t- -..\ I-IV t- ..J s"-"'t" I-v 10,__ -12-~ P=3.0 P=4.5 P=4.0 P=4.5 P=4 .5 !----+-----(~~ ::~F:<l 1-rl 1- 221-~. 18 =~~P =4 .5 20 31 36 30 31 I->-LL. !:: :::i en u z-UJ en Cl~ >-:::i ex: 0 Cl a._ 91 30 82 ATIERBERG LIMITS %l LL PL Pl 87 33 54 UJ ex: ·~ ~ z en ~ ~ g ex: a._ 0 I-<!l en en ~ Vi UJ z Cl Dry Augered 0 to 25 feet. GROUNDWATER INFORMATION : Borehole was dry during drilling and on completion . g; ii: 3 ~ z 0 1----------------------'--'-I u.. 8 e:. DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM 4.1 3 . 0 4.3 6 0 EA VIN G : 1. 5 fl Asphalt, 3 fl Crushed Asphalt and 8" K"""' Material r FILL: very stiff to hard dark gray to gray and tan CLAY with cemented sand Hard brown CLAY -dark gray to gray below 18 feet I-'/ 24==~~P_=_4._5-4----l-~--l-~-l--+---jf---l---+~+-~f--~-~-~~-~-~--=--~~-~~~---; 26 1-Boring terminated at 25 feet. ..., & 301- REMARKS : ~ N -STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE .,., T -TXDOT CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE ~ P -POCKET PENETROMETER RESISTANCE c::; R -PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY 11i!r1acan ~L_~R~Q~D~-~R~O~C~K~Q~U~A~Ll~T.!...!::!YD~E~Sl~G~N~AT~l~O~N~~~~~...L.~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~....L.~~~~~~-:-~ A-3 ...., LOG OF BORING PROJECT: College Station Shopping Plaza Additions FM 2818 & Texas Avenue College Station, Texas CLIENT: Heights Venture Architects Houston , Texas I=' !:::,. FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA ATTERBERG LIMITS %) >< w 0 I-~ .......... ~ >->-LL ~ ::; I- !:: ::::> ::; (..) u U) (..) 0 i== i== aJVi 5 U) ';) o~ o ::S ...J ::; a.. a.. rt 6 '-=-4---==--l--=-< BORING NO . PROJECT NO . DATE SURFACE ELEVATION DRILLING METHOD(S ): Dry Augered 0 to 25 feet. . B-3 92055-384 7-12-05 Existing grade PAGE 1 of 1 GROUNDWATER INFORMATION : Borehole was dry during drilling and on completion . :r: l-a.. w 0 o a.. LL PL Pl DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM ----+-+----+--1----+--~--+---4--+---'-~A VIN G: 1.5'' Asphalt, 4 11 Crushed Asphalt and 4 11 1----1.- 4 \j .K~c;:p M~teri::ll r 2"-:I'" P =4 .5 FILL: firm to hard dark gray to gray Silty CLAY ,__ ...i -with slightly cemented sand pockets 2 to 4 feet 1---1---r" I'" P=3.0 36 47 22 25 -.l 4,__f...I \'" -.l ,__IV I'" 1---+---1...i P=4. 0 2 5 5-tv ~ .___"-+---I -.l i--1\J I'" 1----+--1 ...i P=4.5 21 8>-~I'" >-~I'" 1----+---1N I'" P =2 .0 23 10,__ -.l l'I l'"I ,__...i ..... 12-~ ,__~ 1 4=~P=4 .5 16>-~ >-t/. "=&.~4 .5 33 20,__~ 22,__~ 99 36 18 18 104 84 1.9 15 0 -with cemented clay pockets 4 to 6 feet 0 .8 6 0 -sandy 8 to 10 feet Hard brown CLAY -with ferrous nodules 13 to 15 feet 4.8 4 0 ,__'l ,__/111 -gray below 23 feet 24,__~~P-=-4-.5--!--1---1---!---1-+--+--+---l--+-------------:---------t 26 >-Boring terminated at 25 feet. ~a-::3~0L_,__..L.__L--1... ______ ..L.___J_-=...._j_~.J__~_,.,,,L,,---l....,,----l--L.._....L... ____________ .--______ __, ;;i; N -STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE ~ T-TXDOT CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE REMARKS : ~ P -POCKET PENETROMETER RESISTANCE u R -PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY llenacan , ~L_~R~Q~DL-~R~O~C~K~Q~U~A~L~ITwY~D~E~S~IG~N~A~T~IO~N!.:!..... __ ~~__JL.-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1--~~~~~~-:--: A-4 I I LOG OF BORING PROJECT: College Station Shopping Plaza Additions FM 2818 & Texas Avenue · CLIENT: College Station , Texas Heights Venture Architects Houston, Texas FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA •f=' '==- J: t- Cl. w a ---!V-..i \ IV t-2----....). 1--=+---i.,...,, t- --l 1----+---N, v t- ~ -..i 4 t- "' ~\ill .____.____, ' 6---; -----" l.,j - 22- 24- 26- 281--~ l--=.:+----1 i-- ;::~-1---1 P=2.75 P=3 .5 P=3 .0 P=4.5 P=4.5 25 26 t-i:: Li, -:l (/) u r5 U; a~ >-:l a:: 0 a Cl. 24 97 ATTERBERG LIMITS %\ LL PL Pl 46 22 24 v "' M "' "' a N -STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE T-TXDOT CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE N en P -POCKET PENETROMETER RESISTANCE u R -PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY 5.6 4 0 REMARKS : BORING NO . PROJECT NO . DATE SURFACE ELEVATION DRILLING METHOD(S): Dry Augered O to 20 feet B-4 92055-384 7-12-05 Exist ing grade PAGE 1 of 1 GROUNDWATER INFORMATION : Borehole was dry during drilling and on completion . DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM FILL: very stiff dark gray to gray Silty CLAY with asphalt, base material ana sand pockets Very stiff to hard light gray and tan Silty CLAY Hard brown and tan CLAY -dark gray below 13 feet Boring terminated at 20 feet. 11Br1aam ~L.__~R~Q~D~-~R~O~C~K~Q~U~A~L~IT~Y~D~E~S~IG~N~A~T~IO~N!:!._~~~~~L......~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__JL--~~~~~~"'."""": A-E LOG OF BORING PROJECT: Colle g e S ta tion Shopping Plaza Addit ions BORING NO . B-5 FM 28H~ & Texas Avenue PROJECT NO . 92055-384 College Station, Texas DAT E 7-12-05 C LIE NT: Heights Venture Architects SUR FA CE ELEVATION Existing grade Houston , Texas PAGE 1 of 1 FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(S): AITERBERG Dry Augered 0 to 20 feet. ~ LI MITS %1 ~ UJ GROUNDWATER INFORMATION : 1-->< UJ a:: Cf) UJ Borehole was dry durin g drill ing and on comp letion . ~ z a > c :::i UJ UJ Cf) 0 1--1--~ Vi Cf) -' z 1--:E z UJ ~ co 1--1--0 1--:E ~ 0 UJ ~ a:: ~ -' 1-:Su. z u ~ l.L :::; 0 ;:::: r::: a.. a 0 -:::i :::; u N r:::-co \0:::::: a 'Z ~ UJ u U) :c l.L 1--<.:> U) U) u a j:: j:: 0 U) !::. ::? U) CflCflCflwa:: a:: z-ui r-a z en >-w ~~cn(.)W :::i UJ U) s U) U) z UJ 0 U) ~· za :c U) _J o za::c.. 1--a~ a ~ ~ U) a:: z --z 1---' a.. -' (.) 0 w .. U) :::; a.. a.. :::i a.. w U) :::i l.L :::i a.. 6 ::? co z 1--a.. 0 6 >-:::i z ::? a:: z -' ZO w <>: z ~a.: Ii~ a:: 0 0 1--g < 0 a.. 0 U) U) ::? 0 a.. LL PL Pl :E (.) U) l.L u~ DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM ,t AVING: 1." Asphalt, 2" Crushed Asphalt and 5" f p~i.u 22 .::i<:f' M :>i t f'ri::i l 2,__ -.i FILL: firm to stiff dark to li ght gray and tan CLAY ~I \" -.i -with cemented clay at 2 feet ,__ N i" -.i P=2 .0 4-N i" -v Very stiff to hard gray and tan CLAY P=4.5 26 50 25 25 6- ~ - P=4 .5 24 98 5.6 5 0 8,___ - II" P=4 .5 24 96 3.3 8 0 10 - -~ 12 'i 14 ,___ ~P-45 -with ferro us nodul es and sandy clay seams 13 to 15 feet ,__ 16 ,__ ~ - 18 ,____ ~ ,____ ~P-45 -dark gray below 18 feet 20 ,__ -B oring terminated at 20 feet. 22 - ,____ 24 - ,__ 26- - "' 28- ~ ,__ ;::: .., 0.. 30 ,___ ~ ..; N -STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RESISTANCE REMARKS : "' (') "' T-TXDOT CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE 11i!nace11 "' 0 P -POCKET PENETROMETER RESISTANCE "' "' u R -PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY m ROD -ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION J: A -6 I l "' ~ ;::: -. 0.. (!) ..; CX) "' "' "' 0 N m u a:> :x: LOG OF BORING PROJECT: College Station Shopping Plaza Additions BORING NO. B-6 FM 2 8 18 & Texas Avenue PROJECT NO. 92055-384 College Station , Texas DATE 7-12-05 CLIENT: Heights Venture Architects SURFACE ELEVATION Existing grade Houst on , Texas · PAGE 1 of 1 FIELD DATA LABORATORY DATA DRILLING METHOD(S ): ATTERBERG Dry Augered 0 to 20 fee t. ~ LIMITS %\ ~ w GROUNDWATER INFORMATION : f-x w ct: en z w > ~ :::i Borehole was dry during drilling and on comp letion . ~ w 0 LU en 0 f-f-~ U5 en -' z f-~ z w ~ al f-f-0 f-~ ~ 0 w ~ ct:~ -' ~ LL :::; 0 ~ :i: E a.. 0 0 ti: 8LL f-m u :::; u · "' I=' al w -:::i u f-'-' (/) -::::Ozu (/) u 0 f= f= ci (/) ~ :E en rnrnrn wa: ct: z -(/) f-0 ~ Ui >-w ~!j:!iiiuw :::i w (/) 5 (/) en z w '-' (/) w· zo :i: (/) -' o z a:a.. . f-0 ~ 0 ~ ~ (/) ct: z -ct: -z f--' a.. _,uow ·· en :::; c.. a.. :::i c.. w (/) :::i LL :::l a.. 6 :::;;! alZf-c..O 6 >-:::i z :::;;! ct: z -' ZO w ci: z;::: a.: ci :i1 ct: 0 0 f-0 <i: 0 c.. 0 (/) en :::;;! 0 c.. LL PL Pl ~ u (/) t: LL u~ DESCRIPTION OF STRATUM -,P AV ING · 0 S" A-:nh::ilt ::inrl 4" R ~"" M::itP.ri::il -NI / ;,,i P=3.5 FILL : very stiff dark gray CLAY 2-tvt-;,,i -NI" -dark gray and tan below 2 feet ;,,i P=3 .0 30 62 3 1 31 4-IV t- ;,,i -v Hard gray to light gra~ and tan CLAY P=4.5 37 -with ferrous nodu es 4 to 6 feet 6-,. -P=4.5 8-- ~ P=4 .5 29 88 78 3 1 47 4.4 7 0 10 - -~ 12 --[/ 14 -~""45 32 I-- 16 -/ -~ 18 ~""45 -gray below 18 feet 20 --Boring terminated at 20 feet. 22 -- 24 I-- - 26- I-- 281-- 1-- 30- N -STANDARD PENETRATION TEST RES ISTANCE REMARKS : ' T -TXDOT CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE 11i!r12can P -POCK ET PENETROMETER RES ISTANCE R -PERCENTAGE OF ROCK CORE RECOVERY ROD -ROCK QUALITY DESIGNATION A-7 I· KEY TO SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS AND SYMBOLS ~CLAY [I]] SILT [I] SAND ~GRAVEL ~ SILTY CLAY SOIL TYPES vr;rn CLAYEY t:11Jl SILT ~ ~ CLAYEY SAND CLAYEY GRAVEL SANDY CLAY SANDY SILT SILTY SAND SILTY GRAVEL CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS Penetration Resistance (blows per foot) 0-2 2-4 4-8 8 -15 15 -30 >30 Consistency Very Soft Soft Firm Stiff Very Stiff Hard Undrained Compressive Strength (tsf) ·O -0 .25 0 .25 ~ 0.5 0 .5 -1 .0 1 .0 -2 .0 2 .0 -4 .0 > 4 .0 FILL MATERIAL ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE MATERIAL PLASTICITY OF COHESIVE SOILS RELATIVE DENSITY OF COHESIONLESS SOILS Plas ticity Index 0-5 5 -10 10 -20 20 -40 > 40 Degree of Plasticity Very Low Low Moderate High Very High Penetration Resistance (blows per foot) 0-4 4 -10 10 -30 ·30 -50 > 50 TERMS CHARACTERIZING SOIL STRUCTURE Relative Density Very Loose Loose Med ium Dense Dense Very Dense Slickensided -having inclined planes of weakness that are slick and glossy in appearance Fissured -containing shrinkage cracks , freq uent ly filled wit h fine sand or silt ; usually more or less vertical lnterbedded -composed of alternate layers of different so il ty pes Laminated -composed of thin layers of varying color and text ure Calcareous -containing appreciable quantities of calcium carbonate SAMPLER TYPES I Shelby Tube Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Texas Cone Terracon [I] Auger Sample A-8 . . HEIG~TS VJHIUR[ August 30 , 2005 City of College Station -Site Development 1101 Texas Avenue , P 2 2 ??SP College Station, Texas 77842 RE: Response to Staff Review Comments# 1 dated June 27, 2005 and Response to Staff Review Comments # 2 dated July 25, 2005 Please review the itemized comments below as they are numbered to correspond to Staff Review comments. Staff Review Comments 1 -response PIAing /1. The attached drawings should comprise a complete submittal (3rd review). 2. The adjacent drives are noted on Al.O. Distances are not shown because we are not /requesting any new drives (other than the Texas Ave location) at this time. v3 . Throat distance of 55'-0" has been met as well as the 250 ' separation distance , RE: Al.O. Please submit thru TX-DOT for approval , (preliminary discussions with Terry ..,,{ Paholek -TX-DOT Engineer indicated no problem for approval of this drive). ~-There are no pad sites or pad buildings to be developed under this permit. 5. All impro vements shown on the attached drawings should meet current standards , including, but not limited to: curbing, landscape islands , end islands , dumpsters , drives , etc. /((_ 7. The outdoor storage for the existing "Tractor Supply" and the proposed "We-Rent- It" have been modified to , new 8 ' -0 " high wood fencing , honor setbacks, sized below maximum allowable area, and factored into the parking calculation. RE: ~ Al.O & A5.4 8. Roof equipment have been screened for the building addition by a parapet wall , with added fenc ing at the existing mechanical equipment behind the grocer. The note for screening roof and ground-mounted equipment has been added to Al.O for any equipment still visible on the roof of the existing structure. My field v isit indicated / that no additional screening is needed per the requirements. 9. Curb return radii for the proposed curb cut is shown on Al.O . The existing drive / radii are also shown on Al.O. v'I 0 . Parking is entirely located on site and should meet the current standards . RE: Al.O. 11 . The entire site is one buildin lot. 2 . Parking dimensions have been shown on the site plan . RE: Al.0. vY3 -Curb and pavement details and descriptions are shown on the attached civil drawin gs. RE: C2 & C3. /14. Dumpster dimensions have been increased as per current standards and enclosed w ith painted split face emu walls with painted wood picket gate s, RE: Al.0 & A5.4. Aug ust 30-res po nse sheet.doc Page I of4 OAllAS 15851 Dallas Par kwa y Suite 1060 Add ison, Tex as 7500 1 972.490.7 292 v 972. 49 0.7 444 F 11 11 tlo rth Loop \'/est Su ile 800 Hous ton , Tex as 77008 713.869 .1103 v 713 .8695573 F . . HllG~TS / V.rnIUR~ vl5. Existing building lease lines are indicated on Al.O. The building addition is entirely leased by the proposed "We-Rent-It " tenant. 16. For fire lane and hydrant locations , RE: C3 & CS. 17 . Building elevations with material notes are in the drawings. RE: A2.0 and the ~ attached material sample board for ease of cross-referencing. 18. Two bicycle racks have been shown on the site plan for a total of 12 available bikes /each to be no greater than 150 ' from a building entry . RE: Al.O. v1J Building setback lines has been corrected, RE: Al.O. v19. For revised parking calculations, RE: Al.O. vi I. Existing topography is best seen on the existing survey, RE: E-S. Proposed topography is best seen on the attached grading plan, RE: C4. vn . FIRM numbers are shown on the existing survey E-S and the ALO. . 23. Easements and utilities are on the civil drawings , .....-2 4 The current zoning is - , : . . ~ The overall height of the buildings is indicated on Al.O , greater detail is shown on A2.0, A4.1 and A4.2 V 26. Signs are not a part of this permit, and will J;i e permitted separately by the Owners Sign Vendor. RE: Al.O. AM Na f( Landscape I Streetscaping I Buffer 1. Landscape plans we not ready at this time , but will be submitted by Friday, Sept 2, by Bob Ruth -Landscape Architect. Engineering 1. The property should not require replatting because there are no pad sites or other ownership changes. 2. After site plan approval , but prior to development approval , easement documentation , replat if necessary, and cost estimates will be submitted by the Survey Engineer. 3. After site plan approval, but prior to development approval , the TX-DOT application with associated drawings will be submitted by the Civil Engineer. ~There are no new connections or increased flow to the existing storm sewer system , RE: CS. 5. The development permit and supporting documents are attached. 6. A fire flow report can be provided if still neccessary . Electrical 1.-10 . RE: Civil and electrical drawings. DAU.AS 1585 1 Dalla s Par kway Su ite 1060 Add ison , Texas 75001 97 2.4 90.7292 v ~OT 972.490.744 4 F 1.-2 . Throat distance of 55 '-0 " has been met as well as the 250 ' separation distance , H Ou$roN RE: Al.O . Please submit thru TX-DOT for approval , (preliminary discussions with 1m Horth Loo p \'/est Terry Paholek -TX-DOT Engineer indicated no problem for approval of this drive). Su ii e soo Hous ton, Tex as 77008 Aug ust 30-respo nse sheet.doc Page 2 of 4 713 .869. TI 03 V 713 .869.5573 F .. ' Miscellaneous 1. For irrigation information, RE: Landscape drawings. 2. For backflow preventers , RE: plumbing drawings. Staff Review Comments 2 -response Planning 1. Hopefully , not too much additional material will be required to be submitted . Please elaborate as clearly as possible so we may submit the correct information in a timely manner. 2 . There are no pad sites or pad buildings to be developed under this permit. 3. The drive-thru and previously identified pad sites are no longer part of this permit request. Future development of this area will be permitted, as required , and new L calculations will be submitted. 4. Parking spaces have been corrected, RE: Al.O . . -. The application and fee for the Administrative a JUS ment is attached. Parking end . ~ k islands are all a minimum of 180 s.f. (with the exception of 2 end rows being only n . j-0.: c;.._\(}'1'-rµ 175 ~.f.). The parking setback of 1 O' along frontage property lines has been ~A fi \ 1) provided. RE: Al.O. \Q){W v(O. Painted directional arrows have been added throughout the site to help with traffic ,, circulation identification. RE: Al.O. v1'1. Curb return radii for the proposed curb cut is shown on Al.O . The existing drive ,,,/ radii are also shown on Al.O. /!2. There are no pad sites or pad buildings to be developed under this permit. 13. Curb and pavement details and descriptions are shown on the attached civil drawings . RE: C2 & C3. ~.-16. Dumpster dimensions have been increased as per current standards and enclosed with painted split face emu walls with painted wood picket gates, RE: Al.O & AS.4. ~.-For fire lane and hydrant locations , RE: C3 & CS. 18. Building elevations with material notes are in the drawings. RE: A2.0 and the attached material sample board for ease of cross-referencing. \,J-9 . Existing topography is best seen on the existing survey, RE: E-S. Proposed topography is best seen on the attached grading plan , RE: C4. ~O . Refer to the As-Built Survey, Sheet E-S for all adjacent property information. ~The adjacent drives are noted on Al.O. Distances are not shown because we are not requesting any new drives (other than the Texas Ave location) at this time . --2i Throat distance of 55 '-0 " has been met as well as the 250 ' separation distance , RE: Al.O . Please submit thru TX-DOT for approval , (preliminary discussions with Terry / Paholek-TX-DOT Engineer indicated no problem for approval of this drive). V 23.-24. Easements and utilities are on the civil drawings , RE: CS. August 30-res pon se sheet.doc Page 3 of4 OALlAS 15851 Oollos Parkway Suite 1060 Addison, Texas 75001 972. 490-7292 v 972.49 0.7 444 F HOUS"fON 1111 tl orih l oop \'l est Sui le 800 Housto n, Texas 77008 7138YIJ103 V 713.869.5573 F --. .. HEIGMTS J~HIUR~ 25. After site plan approval , but prior to development approval , the TX-DOT application with associated drawings will be submitted by the Civil Engineer. 27. The overall height of the buildings is indicated on Al.O , greater detail is shown on A2.0, A4.1 and A4.2 28. Roof equipment have been screened for the building addition by a parapet wall , with added fencing at the existing mechanical equipment behind the grocer. The note for screening roof and ground-mounted equipment has been added to Al.O for any equipment still visible on the roof of the existing structure. My field visit indicated that no additional screening is needed per the requirements . 29. The access drive has been provided for future cross access between properties . The term eas ement is intentionally not used because that would require special recording. If necessary, an agreement between owners can be generated. 30. Signs are not a part of this permit, and will be permitted separately by the Owners Sign Vendor. RE: Al.O. 31. RE: reply to comment 1 of Staff Review Comments 2. direct 281-854-6106 cell 713 299-4520 e-mail michael.kravetz@hva.cc A ug ust 30-re s ponse sheet.doc Page 4 of 4 DAU.AS 15851 Oollcts Par kway Suite 1060 Add ison , Texas 75001 972.490 .7292 v 972.4 CJ0 .7 44 4 F HOUS'fON 1111 Nort h Lo op l'l est Sui te 800 Ho uston, Tex as 77008 713 869 .TIOJ V 713.869.5573 F