Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MULT DOCS - 08-00319 - Springhill Suites Marriott Hotel - Site Plan
SG 0 Date: June 29, 2008 LETTER of TRANSMITTAL To: John Millar Company: Rexburg City Address: 12 North Center Rexburg, Idaho 83440 From Aaron Swenson, E.I.T RE: Springhill Suites Project No. 01 -08 -0031 Attached are the following items: pies No. of 3 10 1 14 1 16 These items are: Plan Review Sets Storm Drain Repor Traffic Impact Star ® for approval ❑ approved as submitted ® for your use ❑ approved as noted ❑ as requested ❑ returned for corrections ® for review and comment REMARKS: Copy to F_X 0800319 Marriott Hotel -Site Plan ❑ resubmit copies for approval ❑ submit copies for distribution ❑ return corrected copies Signed _4� 74e'�� R � L CITY OF REXBURG 350 North 2nd East • Rexburg, Idaho 83440 • 208.356.9201 . Forsgren.com engineering stronger communities S:WornxsWew FA Stationery & LogostFA - Transinittat.doc Site Plan Review Checklist Project: Permit # Zone:G Surrounding Land Uses: i fi o Elevations submitted: Landscape Plan submitted: Lighting Plan submitted: 0A t� V O W Rwn -d -- Use Consistent with zoning designation 2 , � 6 Compliance with Comprehensive Plan Flood Plain Check Plans are to scale North arrow Building Coverage Building setbacks: Front yard .. F'OLY 1(1 - I Y\ V'k O \Ao Side yard ( bv\� A Back yard' 01-0 Building Height 19 Minimum distance between buildings v Clear site tirangle Driveway, parking lot dimensions rvi t o Parking space # Parking space sizes _ Parking isle widths _ 1Slk 2� . Handicapped requirements Unloading, loading area Parking spaces located in close proximity to buildings Sidwalks along right of way Internal pedestrian walkways uo Snow. storage Open /common spaces functional? Fencing /screening (HVAC equipment, dumpsters, parking, etc.) _ U Trash dumpster shown and screened Buffering /landscaping requirements �. Lighting Design standards _ Committee Meeting Held If needed 2 p,X2bL 3� NRIV A 6vC- Y1Y1 Q. C - �b Springhill Suites — South Yellowstone Hwy. Conditional Use Permit 1. On June 6, 2008, Aaron Swenson of Forsgren Associates and representing Rexburg Lodging, presented to the Rexburg Planning & Zoning Coordinator a Request and Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a hotel, Springhill Suites, located on South Yellowstone Hwy approximately 'Amile south of University Blvd. 2. On June 9, 2008, the City Clerk sent the Notice of Public Hearing to be published in the local newspaper for June 11, 2008, and June 21, 2008. A notice was posted on the property and sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the above mentioned property. 3. On June 26, 2008, Aaron Swenson presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission for the City of Rexburg the Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a hotel located on South Yellowstone Hwy approximately 'Amile south of University Blvd. Dan Hanna motioned to recommend to City Council to grant the Conditional Use Permit for Springhill Suites, on the South Yellowstone Hwy., with the conditions that storm drainage be retained entirely on the 5 acre parcel, that connectivity be addressed in the development agreement, that there be buffering to the south and east for the neighboring properties to be addressed in a landscape plan, that the height of the building may not exceed 55 feet, and that a dedication of right -of -way on the south border of the property, if necessary, be addressed in the development agreement. Charles Andersen seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. 4. On July 02, 2008 a public hearing before the City Council: Council Member Erickson explained the concerns in the letter as discussed in Planning and Zoning. Mr. Hedelius is concerned with the eminent domain issue. Mr. Hedelius has concerns with the development of property on the south side of the hotel property where a canal is located. Council Member Erickson did not believe the canal area would be developed. If a road was developed by the canal; it would probably be on the north side of the canal on the hotel property. i Public Works Director Millar said the east to west road would not be located on Mr. Hedelius's property, however, a north to south road does exist on the grid system for future development. The road system development will be determined as the Hedelius property is developed. Future development will be the determinate for the location of the road system. r 0 STATE OF IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 900 North Skyline Drive, Suite B • Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 • (208) 528 -2650 August 8, 2008 Brent Crowther PE Forsgren Associates 350 North 2 " East Rexburg, ID 83440 C.L. "Butch" Otter, Governor Toni Hardesty, Director Re: Revised Zions Hospitality Marriot Hotel Water and Sewer Design, Rexburg ID DEQ # 08 -15 -33 Dear Mr. Crowther We have reviewed the revised plan sheets C -06 through C -09 of the project plans for the proposed water and sewer line design along the old US HWY 20 - in Rexburg. The project plans and specifications meet State standards and are approved upon the following condition: 1. The revised plan sheets C -06 through C -09 need to be stamped and signed by a professional engineer licensed in Idaho. Our approval is for the design. We will give final project approval after the systems are constructed. Deviations from the approved design that might result in violations of Idaho Regulations must be reviewed by this office before field installation. This office must be kept informed of the scheduling of all construction phases so that we can make spot inspections as necessary. Within 30 days after construction, a professional engineer registered in the State of Idaho must provide this office with as-built plans, or a letter of certification stating that the project was installed substantially according to the approved design. Please reference DEQ No. 08 -15 -33 when submitting any future correspondence related to this project. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely WilliaiPE Water Quality Engineer Idaho Falls Regional Office C: Gregory Eager PE, Regional Administrator Lynn Durtschi, EIHD Rexburg Carl Lohrengel, Idaho Division of Plumbing John Millar PE, Public Works, City of Rexburg SCANNErE 08 -15 -33 Zions Hospitality Marriot Hotel FoP,SGREN, July 24, 2008 John Millar Public Works Director Rexburg City 19 East Main St. Rexburg, Idaho 83440 RE: Response to Engineering review comments - 08 00319 Springhill Suites Marriott Hotel Revised Site Plan 7/29/2008 1 % This is being handled by a deed to the city from the Fujimoto's, if it has not happened yet it - -` should in the next day or two. 2. This happened as a result of a misunderstanding during a pre- design meeting. A new 12" water line has been designed to connect to the existing line at University. See drawing C -07 and C -08. 3. Added see drawing C -07. 4. Added notes, see C -01. 5. Added notes, see C -01. 6. See C -07 and C -08. 7. Extended sewer line, see C -07. 8. A filter insert has been added to the design that will handle sediment, debris, and hydrocarbons (see note 18, C -06). Also previously built into the system is a sump at the inlet box, a sediment basin at the beginning of the system to catch sediment, and a basin at the end of the system to catch floatables. Both of these are accessed from an inspection cover. C 9.} Informed developer of the need for these permits. 10. Reconfigured water line around building as a looping system, see C -06 11. Signs indicated in traffic study have been added to construction drawings, see C -03. tin ? �i r, 12. Correction made �� xjkt 7 7 1 n drainage swells behind C &G see C -05 notes 9.- ar►ct°f0, and cross section in C -10 Architect will submit dumpster detail. 5 Yes, in the Plat to be recorded shortly. E- �' 1,1 1 Will submit shortly, does this need to be done before construction begins 17. Lowered sewer line see C -06 &C- 09�����- 18.— 19. Left turn lane was extended see C -03 notes 1,243. See also attached comment from Engineer who did traffic study. We have tried to address your comments to the best of our ability. Please let any other concerns or if you feel we didn't address fully your comments. Thank you, Forsgren Associates, Inc. Aaron E. Swenson, EIT Project Engineer aswensonP,forsgren.com 350 North 2nd East • Rexburg, Idaho 83 • 208. 356.9201 • Forsgr • 0 Response: Eastbound traffic would be considered traffic from a link on the west leg of the proposed intersection. The proposed intersection will only have 3 legs; north, south, and west. The left turn movement you are referring to in your comment was considered in the southbound traffic in the report (please refer to Table 8 on page 11 for the calculated delay times for the southbound traffic, which includes the southbound traffic turning left into the development, at the two intersections). The results of the study determined that added traffic from the development will not decrease the intersection LOS, thus no improvements are required due to the traffic produced by the development. Even though the traffic does not warrant improvements, the fact that the development is adjacent to a minor arterial warrants that turn lanes, deceleration lanes, or acceleration lanes be installed (see recommendation 2 in the executive summary and on page 14 of the report). NO 1 UILI J Jul, LL riw • • P.osox 19 nSt E Main St. �p C I T Y o r Rexburg, Idaho 83440 T� 7 XBURG phone (208) 359 -3020 i \ � i L�J Fax (208) 359 -30 Review Action July 22, 2008 Permit Number: 08 00319 Project Name: Project Type: Marriot Hotel -Site Plan Site Plan Review Review Item Approved Site Plan 1. The right -of -way shown for the road widening needs to be dedicated to the City of Rexburg. 2. Plan sheet C -01 shows an existing water line along south Yellowstone. This does not exist. The nearest line is located approximately 550 feet to the north and is a 12 inch line. The water line will need to be extended to, and across the site to provide service to properties to the south, Plans will need to be provided for the waterline extension. 3. Plan sheet C -01 shows an existing sewer line going north from the existing manhole. This line does not exist, but will need to be constructed as a function of this project. The line will need to be at the maximum depth to serve this property and those properties to the north and east of this site. 4. Several street signs are shown on plan sheet C -01. These will need to be relocated as a function of this project. 5. Power poles, phone boxes, etc will need to be relocated prior the street widening. These are not required by the plans. 6. Plan sheet C -03 shown connection to a water line that does not exist. 7. The sanitary sewer line shown on the south side of the building will serve this building, but the main line will still have to be extended to the north along south Yellowstone for future development. 8. The proposed storm chanbers need to a method to protect them from floating an settelable solids from entering the charnb 9 A SWPPP or exclusion and and EPA will be required. 10. The fire. hydrant supply lines are exte e U v��nt JUL 2 9 7� U � 0 F REXB_�- Adlbk AdIL F ,tiXKr;R r ., CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITY O F REXBURG City of Rexburg me. rca� Family c mni° Department of Community Development 19 E. Main St. / Rexburg, ID. 83440 Phone (208) 359 -3020 / Fax (208) 359 -3024 Project Information Permit # 0800274 Permit Type Conditional Use Permit Project Name Springhill Suites - CUP Site Address Parcel # RPRXBCA0367250 Project Description Conditions 1. All staff review comments are included in the conditions for this Condtional Use Permit. 2. Connectivity will be addressed in the development agreement with the City of Rexburg. 3. There will be buffering to the south and east for the neighboring properties to be addressed in a landscape plan. 4. The height of the building may not exceed 55 feet. 5. A dedication of right -of -way on the south border of the property, if necessary, will be addressed in the development agreement with the City of Rexburg. 6. Storm drainage will be retained entirely on the 5 acre parcel. Print Name Signature Date Date Issued: 08/21/2008 Issued By: ELAINEM 0 0 ���EXRU CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITY O F REXBU City of Rexburg ow America F m ilyCwnnturut Department of Community Development 19 E. Main St. / Rexburg, ID. 83440 Phone (208) 359 -3020 / Fax (208) 359 -3024 Project Information Permit # 0800274 Permit Type Conditional Use Permit Project Name Springhill Suites - CUP Site Address Parcel # RPRXBCA0367250 Project Description Names Associated with this Project Type Name Contact Phone # License # Exp Date Fee Information Project Valuation Conditional Use Permit 250.00 Public Hearing Notice Fee 200.00 Total Fees Paid $450.00 * ** SEE ATTACHED CONDITIONS * ** Print Name Date Issued: 08/21/2008 Signature Date Issued By: ELAINEM JaNell Hansen From: Richard Horner Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 2:34 PM To: JaNell Hansen Subject: RE: High School Street Impact Fee What did we charge on the Burton Elementary? The High School looks fine with me. Richard R. Horner Chief Financial Officer City of Rexburg PO Box 280 (12 N. Center) Rexburg, Idaho 83440 208 - 359 -3020 x327 richard rexburg.org From: JaNell Hansen Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 2:10 PM To: Richard Horner; John Millar Subject: High School Street Impact Fee Richard & John, Here are the street impact fee calculations for the high school. If you want to make any adjustment, let me know. Street Impact Fee Category: Education -High School, 15/1000 sq ft 245,375 sq ft * 15/1000 = 3680.63 * $16.80 = $61,834.58. JaNell Hansen Building Safety Coordinator Phone: 208.359.3020 ext 346 Fax: 208.359.3024 RMURG 1 STATE OF IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 900 North Skyline Drive, Suite B • Idaho Falls, Idaho 83402 • (208) 528 -2650 July 15, 2008 C.L. "Butch" Otter, Governor Toni Hardesty, Director Brent Crowther PE Forsgren Associates 350 North 2 " East Rexburg, ID 83440 Re: Zions Hospitality Marriot Hotel Water and Sewer Design, Rexburg ID DEQ # 08 -15 -33 Dear Mr. Crowther We have reviewed the plans and specifications for the proposed water and sewer systems design. The project plans and specifications meet State standards and are approved. Please be aware that the shallow injection wells for the storm water facility are required to be inventoried with the Idaho Department of Water Resource (IDWR) PER IDAPA 37.03.03.030.01. Our approval is for the design. We will give final project approval after the systems are constructed. Deviations from the approved design that might result in violations of Idaho Regulations must be reviewed by this office before field installation. This office must be kept informed of the scheduling of all construction phases so that we can make spot inspections as necessary. Within 30 days after construction, a professional engineer registered in the State of Idaho must provide this office with as -built plans, or a letter of certification stating that the project was installed substantially according to the approved design. Please reference DEQ No. 08 -15 -33 when submitting any future correspondence related to this project. If you have any questions please call. Sincerely, William Teuscher PE Water Quality Engineer Idaho Falls Regional Offide C: Gregory Eager PE, Regional Administrator Lynn Durtschi, EM Rexburg Carl Lohrengel, Idaho Division of Plumbing John Millar PE, Public Works, City of Rexburg 08 -15 -33 Zions Hospitality Marriot Hotel SCANNED JUL 15 2008 n e d o r. ti e e _ I e d n _ - r5/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 02 0900319 Springhill Suites Marriott Hotel REPORT Geotechnical Evaluation Springhill Suites Rexburg, Idaho PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: Xcell Engineering, LC 5745 Industry Way, No. 4 Chubbuck, Idaho 83202 F GREN 350 North 2nd East Idaho Falls, ID 83440 May 8, 2008 D w E c OF w OF R -Yri. IlDn .� 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 03 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ... ... .............................. ...........................1 INTRODUCTION ...................................... ....•.••••• PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION _._ ......• ......... 2 SITE EVALUATION ........................................... ............................... ........................... 2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS .................................... .............. ......... LABORATORY TESTING . ............................... ..................... .................................... DISCUSSION ...... • ""' GEOTECHNICAL OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............•••..•............... GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................... ........... .............................. ............................ Site and Subgrade Preparation ...... ............................... ...........3 .......3 Wet Weather/Wet Soil Construction ......................•..... ....................I.......... ..4 Slope Stability for Temporary Excavation and Cuts .::::::::::::::.. - ................• 5 .................... Structural Fill .... ...... ' 6 Foundations ....... ............................... ,.... ................,..........:.. ...........6 Seismic Considerations .................... I ...... 6 Concrete.. , .. .. . ........... .............................. .............................. Utility Trench Backfill ............................................. ......... ...................... .......7 Surface Drainage and Erosion ................ 7 Pavement Subgrade Preparation and Section Design ....................................... ........ 8 REVIEWOF PLANS..... ................................................ ....................... .................._.... 9 NATION AND TESTING .................. ......... CONSTRUCTION OBSER ......... , g 1. EVALUATION LIMITATIONS ... .................'•'•'•" PAGE 05 XCELL 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 Springhill Su Rexburg, 10 Po8002 Page 2 . On -site storm water disposal SITE EVALUATION The Engineer subcontracted the advancementof o P an and were approxim 18, 2008. Exploration locations are presented ty tes encountered in the test pits were located relative to existing site features. aQ1I Ineer referencing the Unified Soil evaluated and logged in the field by 9 on Classification System (USCS). A thorough explanation tihe terms onshe boring plate 2. The USCS should be used to interpret Appendix, throughout this report. The test pit logs are presented in the App Subsurface Conditions Soil conditions varied slightly across the site and while no the area s common. the test pits it has been our experience that high g dense fine The soil profile encountered consists of to 12 feet t s ilt y underlain Si tyc ay so I onthe si is stiff and to coarse sandy gravel to depths o up typically drains poorly. Poor drainage in conjunction with s t hem to moderate pf evemen 2 potential of the soil may result in conditions conducive The underlying gravel is porous and groundwater anticipate table raises t 'subsurface flow will , be cm /sec in a dry condition, if the soil w governed by transmissivity of the soil and subsurface flow rates will Water significantly. The sandy gravel will be prone to erosion subjected to running de if Specific layer contacts and geotechnical data are presented on the test pit logs in the Appendix. Groundwater is not expected. LaboratotY Testing moisture content, Select soil samples were tested to assess Atterberg limits, testing was Value, Laboratory grain - size distribution, ma ximum we du egRThe results of laboratory testing performed by referencing individ ual ASTM procedures are presented in the appendix to this report. DISCUSSION ction site is situated t eAsting flood was ob h The on The proposed constru River. No evidence of standing water ands groundwater site clay is not recommended for support of foundations, hat the subsurface gravel is high of the planned concrete floor slabs. It should b permeable and capable of transmitting high volumes of water. During �U g a tion s a on t he groundwater table may rise to within a few feet of the existing g presence of ground water in the underlying gravel will reduce the allowable bearing capacity of the soil to approximately half of its bearing capacity when dry. The engineering properties of the soil materials encountered were assessed via subsurface exploration, in situ and laboratory testing and indicate that, if properly prepared, the soil will not be prone to settlement when subjected to loads associated with the structure and planned 9aA44 m e £wd&.ae 5,94-o" 5 e— "aree. 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 09 Springi ill Suites Rexburg, ID P08002 Page 6 under wet conditions, we recommend the contractor have contingencies for replacing soft, wet soil with structural fill or drain rock. Structural fill should never be placed over disturbed or frozen subgrade. We recommend The Engineer be retained to evaluate the condition and suitability of on =site soil for reuse as structural fill and to monitor compaction during structural fill placement. Foundations The following geotechnical foundation recommendations are provided for static conditions. Conventional spread footings are_ recommended for support of the buildings and should be placed on the dense sand and gravel underlying the site or on compacted structural fill over the dense sand and gravel. This will likely require over - excavation of the clay on the site to expose the dense gravel in the footing locations. If structural fill is placed on the dense na #ive gravel as recommended in the structural fill section of this letter we recommend an allowable bearing capacity of 3000 psf be used for foundation design. A modulus of subgrade reaction of 210 pounds per cubic inch can be utilized for design of slabs and pipe bedding placed in accordance with the Structural Fill and Site and Subgrade Preparation sections of this report. The modulus presupposes at least , Inches of compacted '/ -inch minus crushed gravel conforming to ISPWC section 802 below the slab. We estimate total and differential static foundation settlement for shallow conventional spread footings will be less than 14nch and 112 -inch, respectively. Foundations should bear a minimum of 30 inches below the finished exterior grade to help reduce the potential for frost action and should be placed on structural fill that has been compacted in -place as outlined for structural fill. Seismic Considerations We understand the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) will be utilized for project structural design. Section 1615.1. of the 2006 IBC outlines the procedure for evaluating site ground motions and design - spectral response accelerations. The Engineer utilized site soil and geologic data and the project location to establish earthquake - loading criteria at the site referencing Section 1615.1 of the 2006 IBC, Based on the results from initial exploration, and our review of well logs in the area, a Site Class C can be utilized. Concrete Type 1111 cement is expected to be suitable for use in concrete at the site. Corrosivity to uncoated steel is expected to be moderate within the top 5 feet of the soil profile and coating or other protection of steel should be considered. 16&%A-6 sqe� ,gam e?, 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 10 Springhill Suhes Rexburg, 10 P08002 Page 7 Utility Trench Backfill All saturated, loose, or disturbed soil should be removed from the bottom of utility trenches prior to placing pipe bedding. Bedding of pipes should be performed according to the Idaho Standards for Public Works. Surface Drainage and Erosion We recommend the ground surface around the proposed building be sloped at least 2 percent away from the improvements. This will reduce the potential for ponding and water infiltration into the subsurface soils. Permeability of on -site soils is suitable for placement of on -site storm water disposal sumps or drywells. We recommend a design percolation rate of 1 -inch in 20 minutes be used to size infiltration basins. Since even small amounts of grease or clay fines can reduce efficiency of infiltration basins, we recommend installation of a grease trap/ settling basin up- gradient of the infiltration basin. Pavement Subgrade Preparation and Section Design We estimate traffic volumes will be approximately 2000, or less, Single Axle Loads per day in driveway areas. We .anticipate the subgrade will consist of silty clay with a CBR -value of approximately 8. Fill imported to raise site grades -for the pavement subgrade and the pavement sections presented below should be evaluated prior to placement. Factors used to design this pavement section were based on empirical data obtained through field and laboratory testing, our estimates of traffic volumes for the proposed pavement areas and our understanding of the use for the pavement. Our pavement design and subgrade preparation recommendations reflect these anticipated loading applications and minimal heavy construction. traffic. High volumes of -heavy construction traffic should be supported by temporary gravel access roads. If subgrade conditions appear significantly different during construction, or if traffic loading conditions change or traffic volumes increase, the Engineer should be notified to amend our recommendations accordingly. If construction equipment or traffic will access portions of the planned structure, the pavement section will require an evaluation specific to planned equipment. The pavement subgrade soil should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of the soil as determined by ASTM D 698 (Standard Proctor) as discussed in the Site and Subgrade Preparation section. The Engineer should be retained to verify the native subgrade has been compacted to structural fill requirements. Providing the site preparation procedures are accomplished as described above, the following minimum pavement sections are recommended for traffic areas; Asphalt Pavement — Auto Parkina 2.0 "- Class III asphalt concrete top course 4.0% % -inch- minus, crushed sand and gravel base course 9.0% Pit -run sand and gravel subbase course 3a&*'g9' M 5x E s . 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCE11 PAGE 13 Springhill Sukes Rexburg, ID P06002 Paga io References: 1. Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, 2005 Edition Section 200 — Earthwork — Part 2. 2. Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, 2005 Edition Section 300 — Trenching 3.18. 3. Highway Engineering S" Edition Wright & Paquette pp 482 -488. 4. Thickness for Concrete Highway and Street Pavements Portland Cement Association pp 5. NAVFAC Design Manual 7.02 Foundations & Earth Structures, 1986 7.2-63 Table 1. 6. Journal of Geotechnica/ & Geoenvironmental Engineering, Sep., 1999 Volume 125 Seismic Earth Pressure on Retaining Structures, Richards, Huang & Fishman pp 771. 7. Intemational Building Code — 2006 Chapters 16, 1'8.and 19. 8. Principles of Geotechnica/ Engineering, Braja M. Das, PWS Publishers 1985. 9. Series in Soil Engineering —.Soff Mechanics, Lambe & Whitman, Wiley 1969. 10. Soil Mechanic in Engineering Practice 3' Edition, Terzaghi, Peck & Mesd Wiley 1996. 11. NAVFAC Design Manua/7.. 01 Soil Mechanics, 1986. 12. US EPA Siting Tool http a /epamaa20.el2a.gov /tri/emtri.asp 13. USGS Earthquake Hazards Program http : / /egdesign.cr.usgs.qov /cgi- bin /design- lookup- gsgi 14: National : Geographic TOPO! Mapping. Software. 15. Simplified Procedure for Evaluating soil Liquefaction Potential, Izzat M. Idriss, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Division, ASCE Vol 97, No. SM9 September, 1971. &&eA'f — 5xcdfiace SR1w� S PAGE 16 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL Appendix: Exploratory Logs Seismic Design Response Spectrum Bearing Capacity.— Meyerhof Lateral Earth Pressures Flexible Pavement Design'— Auto Flexible Pavement Design — Access Lanes Laboratory Test Results SAMPLE DATA: Sample Location: Material Source: Sample ID#: Date Obtained: Date Tested: 'Tested By: Total weight of sample + Tare' weight of Tare: Total weight of sampl 81.50 Total d t of sample = 80.11 Moisture Content of 44 Wet we' t+ an: we' t + an• Wei ht of Pan: Moisture content: 4.36% Type of Fines: % Cobbles = 0.0% 3" to +#d = 60.3 % Coarse._ .: 0 30.5 /o %Fine = 29.8% 44 to +#200= 38.0% % Coarse = 6.9% % Medium = 24.6% Y Fine = 6.4% % C'lay/Silt = l .7% A � 4 7 o r/� }+ C b m *R r;\7jgn Hmpialit)AOt4$ -Wy i Sp&tClali Soitq\700 Copa6760 camptyb6i So0a & ANhaleVSv- 09.OZO.aIe)Comw. 1 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 17 TEST PIT No. 7 Project: Springhill Suites File: P08006 DEPTH SOIL SOIL Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 0.0-3.0 CL Fine Sandy Silty Clay -Dark brown, stiff, dry to moist. Roots in upper 2- inches minimal. 3.0-12.0 GP Fine to Coarse Sandy Gravel — Light brown, dense damp Excavated on 4118108 Groundwater not encountered Test pit terminated a 12 feet Bulk samples taken 1, 6 &6feet Excavation Equipment: Case Backhoe Logged by: JPB XCELLE GIIN ING, LC 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 18 TEST PIT No. 2 Project. Springhill Suites File: P08006 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 1.0-3.5 CL Fine Sandy Silty Clay -Dark brown, stiff, moist. Roots in upper 2- inches minimal_ Unconfined compressive strength = 1.5 to 2.0 tons per square foot 3.5-10.0 GP Fine to Coarse Sandy Gravel -- Light brown, dense damp Excavated on 4198108 Groundwater not encountered Test pit terminated a 10 feet Bulk samples taken 1 M feet Excavation Equipment. Case Backhoe Logged by: JPB ' J XCELLE GIIN�E�E�R „ING, LC r TEST PIT No. 3 Project: Springhill Suites File: P08006 DEPTH 'SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 2.0-4.0 CL Fine Sandy Silty Clay -Dark brown, stiff, moist. Roots in upper 2- inches minimal. 2.0-12.0 GP Fine to Coarse Sandy Gravel — Light brown, dense damp 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 EM PAGE 19 Excavated on 4198108 Groundwater not encountered Test pit terminated a 92 feet Excavation Equipment: Case Backhoe Logged by: JPB '' XCELL ENGINEERING, LC 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 20 TEST PIT No. 4 Project: Springhill Suites File: P08006 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 3.0-3,0 CL Fine Sandy Silty Clay -Dark brown, stiff, moist. Roots in upper 2- inches minimal. 3.0-12.0 GP Fine to Coarse Sandy Gravel — Light brown, dense damp Excavated on 4118108 Groundwater not encountered Test pit terminated a 12 feet Bulk samples taken 2 &6 feet Excavation Equipment. Case Backhoe Logged by. JPB , F XCELL ENGINEERING, LC r 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 21 TEST PIT No. 5 Project: Springhill Suites File: P08006 DEPTH SOIL SOIL (Feet) CLASS DESCRIPTION 4.0-3.0 CL Fine Sandy Silty Clay -Dark brown, stiff, moist. Roots in upper 2- inches minimal. 3.0-12.0 GP Fine to Coarse Sandy Gravel — Light brown, dense damp Excavated on 4118108 Groundwater not encountered Test pit terminated a 12 feet Bulk samples taken 1 &6feet Excavation Equipment. Case Backhoe Logged by, • JPB XCELL ENGINEERING, LC 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 22 Project. Springhill Suites Date, May 8, 2008 Engineer: JPB Site Class: Ss = S1 Fa Fv a Seas 2% Pobability of Exceedance in 50 Years 10% Probability of Exceedance in 50 Years Values 51 ra as a Function 'of alte Class anti M a� Response Acceleration at Short Periods Site Class I Ss < 0.251 Ss = 0.5 1 Ss = 0.751 Ss s o at 1 Second (: Soil Profile Shear Wave Velocity Standard Undrained Shear Site Class Name Vs In feet per second Penetration Strength Su in PAf A Hard Rock Vs >5000 N/A N/A B Rock 2500 <Vs<5000 N /A N/A Dense Soil and C Soft rock 1200,Vs,2500 N>50 Su >2000 D Stiff Soil 600 <Vs,1200 15 <N,50 1000<Su <2000 E Soft Soil V6,600 N,15 Su <1000 Any profile with more than 100 feet of soil having the following characteristics: 1. E _ Plasticity Index, PI > 20 2, Moisture Content w equal to or greater than 40, and 3. Undralned shear strength 5u < 500 psf Any profile containing soils having one or more of the following characteristics: 1. Soils vulnerable to potential (allure or collapse under seismic loading such as liquifiable soils. quick and highly sensitive days or collapsable or weakly cemented F - soils. 1 Pests and/or highly organic clays(Thickness >10 feet) 3. Very high plasticity clays (Thickness > 25 feet of P1 >75) 4_ Very thick, soft or medium stiff clays (thickness >120 feet) 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 23 Bearing Capacity - Meyerhof Quit = cNcScDc +gNgSqDq +0.5YBNYSYDY Quit = cNc1cDc +gNg1qDq +0.5YBNYIYD1 Project: Springhill Suites Date; May 8, 2008 Engineer: JPB If-T. rees For Silt/Sand /Gr Soils "QAllow psf 0 >101nclinatlon =0 = 6766 psf For Clay Soils "OA1 psf 0 =0 inclination =0 low = 4833 psf 1 For Siit/Sand /Gr Soils psf psi 0>10 Inclination >0 Q Allow =I psf 1 For Clay Soils I Q M AIIOW psf 0=0 Inclination >0 = 3822 psf NOTE: 1) C = Unconened Compressive Strength 2) q = Over burden Pressure - Y - Depth or Footing 3) 8 - width of Footin7 4) tfiil weight= effecUw uNt weight Vertical Footings Inclined Footings 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 24 Active Seismic Forces Using the "M ononobe -Okabe Equations elaborated by Seed and Whitman (1970) Indicate an additional thrust of Pounds per linear Foot of Wall During the Seismic Event Specified. The force acts at1 /3 the wall height at an angle of degrees below perpendicular to wall face as shown below. Mabmum depth to which tensiie.cracks in the sal may be anticipated is Inches eon Soe9on 9.10 mMI 9.10 A_-We Noce on Ra-(th waa! with Fn*wtMke =v'rM 337 I t 1 ° kAW AV k,W W W � kW F ROM 9.30 Active filra1 cq rrWO(r.9 µi111 -1111 Ntyt t(11g1ke' wR.Y; Project: Springhill Suites Data: May 8, 2008 Soil Type: Silty Clay ( f c 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 25 Flexible Pavement Design venicis Enter EAL 20 Total 20 yr Type ADT Yr Const Constant Automobile .. r, : Actual Factor: • 2760 2 -Axle Truck Select a Recommended Safety Class A Cement Treated Base: Design. Section (inches) 69110 3 -Axle Truck GE for AC = .0032(n baseXloo -R) +FS Class B Cem Cement Treated Base 0 .. 4 - Axle.Truck ;. Asphalt Treated Base: 0. 5+ -Axle Truck Lime Treated Base: 0 An TruCkWa kro awe TOTAL EAL = Traffic Index (TI) = 9a )(EAl J1,000,00 0)A0.119 = jEnter R- Values: Aggregate Base: Aggregate Subbase : Aggregate Base: Basement Soil: Equivalent Actual Factor: Enter Calc GE Thickness (feet) Select a Recommended Safety Class A Cement Treated Base: Design. Section (inches) GE _ .0032 1 100 -R) + FS Selected GE for AC = .0032(n baseXloo -R) +FS Class B Cem Cement Treated Base FS Value GE for Base = .0032(TbubbsseX100- R) +FS- Pavement= Asphalt Treated Base: a. Lime Treated Base: Soil Cement: Aggregate Base: Equivalent Actual Calc GE Thickness (feet) Thickness . Ratio aiue:l Required Thickness (feet) Design. Section (inches) GE _ .0032 1 100 -R) + FS GE for AC = .0032(n baseXloo -R) +FS GE for Base = .0032(TbubbsseX100- R) +FS- Pavement= GE Subba se— d)032(Tlsodx100- R}-FSPavemont -Base= :;•�,;O 1 _ :: I0..7lF . 8.92 Notes: 1) if frost depth is greater than the design pavement section it may be required to increase the section thickness 2) The California Method is based on experience and fatigue analysis may be required 3) If basement soil is expected to become saturated It may be required to increase the section thickness 1 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 Vehicle Type Enter EAL 20 ADT Yr Const Automobile Design 2 Axle Truck Thickness Ratio -Axle Truck Section . 4 Axle Truck rne, 5+ -Axle Truck (Inches Ali Trucks =1e kip ay1a OTAL ZEAL Traffic Index (TI) = 9.0 EA /1,000,00o)-0.119= Enter R Values• Gt= for Base = .0032(Tlsubbase)(100 +FS Pavement = Aggregate Base: 0 Aggregate Subbase: GE Subbase= .0032(71 soiIK100 R)• FS- Pavoment-Bese = Basement Soil: 0:$9 Select a Recommended Safety Factor: Enter Class A Cement Treated Base: : °;:;10 24. Selected Class B Cement Treated Base: .1 FS Value Asphalt Treated Base:: Lime Treated Base: Soil Cement: Aggregate Base:r' XCELL Iotal 20 yr Constant 2760 13800 ' 1840© 0 Otes: 1) If frost depth is greater than the design pavement section it may be required to increase the section thickness 2) The California Method is based on experience and fatigue analysis may be required 3) If basement soil is expected to become Saturated it may be required io increase the section thickness PAGE 26 - Flexible Pavement Design Cale GE Thickness Required . Design GE = .0032 100-Rj + :S Thickness Ratio . Thickness Section feet . (Value:1 (feet) (Inches GE for AC a .0032(71 brlSex100 -R) +FS :r. "M 0.1$ Gt= for Base = .0032(Tlsubbase)(100 +FS Pavement = _ j ':' 0 GE Subbase= .0032(71 soiIK100 R)• FS- Pavoment-Bese = .: ;'•(�;& j :' 0:$9 0.72 Otes: 1) If frost depth is greater than the design pavement section it may be required to increase the section thickness 2) The California Method is based on experience and fatigue analysis may be required 3) If basement soil is expected to become Saturated it may be required io increase the section thickness PAGE 26 - Flexible Pavement Design f k 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 28 Report Number. SV-08-020 ���+++ i�GR. EN Project Number 01.08-0031 Project Name S ring EHUs Report to : Copies to MATERIALS LABORATORY REPORT Sieve Analysis - General Soils SAWLE DATA Sample Location: Test Pit Material Source: Test Pit Sample M#: " SV-08-020 Materials Classification: GP Date Obtained: 4/23/2008 Date Tested: 4/2412008 Tested BY: DP ►A•ERUL DATA Sieve Size Percent Passing MA 70%- 60yb - 50*/* 40% 300/0' 20% loll/ 0% 6 100.0% 3 100.0% I M2 95.4% IN 82.4% 3/4 69.5% 1/2 56.7%- 3/8 50.4% 4 39.rA 8 34.9% 10 32,8% 16 26.0% 7 30 12.0% 40 8.2% 50 4.3% Sieve Analysis Chat Hillis % -3" to +#4 = 60.3% 11 % Coarse = 1 Uscs= GP Type of Fines = 1VP IN 29.8% III lillmillililim % -#4 to 4#20V- 38.0% z Y9 Coarse - 6.9% 1111111111111111111111111111H %Medium 24.6% I N 6.4% 0 C-0 I % aqy1SW(-#200)::= 1.7% 111111 ■ 1111111 9 6 it W 0 IIll1111N WcXaughton IN Manager. Materials Laboratory 11 IN ■ 111111111111111-111111111H In I iiiiiiiimii�ill IN iiiiiiismililill. I Mill 11 11 1N 11111AIIIII11111111111111 �I1IIII�E ������■un�mr���� a�me�mm HIM 1110i 11111131 H 11111181111111 PRO. 1111111111111111N� 60 3.7 1000.0 100 2.1% 200 1.77. Cc- 0.37 100.0 10.0 4.0 Screen Size D,, 0.50 PL 0.1 . 0.0 Ve Cobbles 0-0% Cu= 28.07 D3 1.61 LL = % -3" to +#4 = 60.3% D 14,08 F1 = % Coarse = 30.5% Uscs= GP Type of Fines = 1VP Vc. Fine = 29.8% Poorly graded gravel % -#4 to 4#20V- 38.0% z Y9 Coarse - 6.9% %Medium 24.6% Reviewed By: Yo Fine = 6.4% 0 C-0 William W. M-N,,ghton % aqy1SW(-#200)::= 1.7% 6 9 6 it W WcXaughton Manager. Materials Laboratory 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 29 F0 IV � � Samp Material Location: Report Number- umber: ` . Material Source; Project Name' > ' �:�, Tested By: ProjectNugnber:` C7i Sample 0 Number:. MATERIALS LABORATORY WORKSHEET C B R Determination ASTM D 1883 Material Data Preparation Sheet Computations for Moisture, Wet Density and Dry Density Preparation and Compaction Method ASTM D 698 Dry density determination before expansion Wet weight material + mold: Weight of Mold: Wet weight of material: Wet density of material: Dry Density: Wet weight material -F pan: Dry weight material ± pan: Weight of pan: Dry weight material: Weight of water: Percent moisture: 30 107.3 115.3 1 124.0 89.2 95.8 1 303.0 ume of Material CBR at Dry Density after expansion: 1 4 7 Moisture content before Com - Moisture content Top 1" after soala EVAA t EVE &4 r 'e F ,& 4 Air 4,8295 4.6994 Wet weight material + pan: Dry weight material + pan: Weight of pan: Dry weight material: Weight of water. Percent moisture: Moisture content after Compaction 73.40 1 72.20 M-bu 23.43% 1 21.27 5 1 20.07 uttttat Aelgat = &4 r 'e F ,& 4 Air 4,8295 4.6994 73.40 1 72.20 M-bu 23.43% 1 21.27 5 1 20.07 uttttat Aelgat = +.JO%U _ Height after soaking = 4,8295 4.6994 Amount of expansion or settlement 0.7 _ 0.115 4 Percent Expansion — 5 3556% 2.5175 ° 10 25 Blows 56 Blows Initial gage reading Gage reading at Max expansion or Max iCC1a �i N. J c; hton Manager; Materials Laboratory Time ��tlJor )kepiuliiy�01- 0°.aM)ii cp���>,iq Suieml7°0 c:aaP960 CwnnM�bl 3Mix �c. auptalt�[CpR- °5 -019.xlfiur shear for tool Pagc t of 4 after expansion 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL Fo S GREN Simple Location: _ ''s;,�., Report Number: Material Source: project Name: Tested$y: Project Number: Sample 1D Number: MATERIALS LABORATORY WORKSHEET C B R Determination ASTM D 1883 Setup Data and Penetration Sheet Penitration rate is apx. .05in/m%n 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.125 0.150 0.175 0.200 0.300 0.400 0.500 PAGE 30 10 Blows 25 Blows. 56 Blows q o d p p, o 0 o p, v o 0 o O P, I ..�" 0.025 0.025 0.025 0,000 0.000 1 0 01000 0.000 0 0.047 0.022 3.690 0.030 0.025 35 0.025 0.025 24 0.050 0.000 3.668 0.065 0.015 40 0.050 0.050 49 0.075 0.000 9.004 0.075 0.000 43 0.075 0.075 61 0.100 0.000 10.004 0.100 0.000 44 01100 0.100 70 0.125 0.000 12.672 0.125 01000 48 0.125 0.125 75 0.150 0.000 13.005 0.150 0.000 49 0.150 0.150 81 0.175 0.000 14.339 0.175 0.000 49 0.175 0.175 85 0.200 0.000 13.672 0.200 0.000 51 0.200 0.200 88 0.300 0.000 17.007 0.300 0.000 57 0.300 0.300 104 0.400 1 0.000 19.675 0.400 0.000 62 0.400 0.400 114 0.732 1 0.000 1 22.676 0.500 0.000 64 0.500 0.500 121 William W. McNaughton ill�iarn `� �V1c;Zu ton Manager; Materials Laboratory KAr,= A.0toIh)A0i- M-003Y SoOS & A:phil((CBR- 05- 019AcPaa sheet for teat Page 2 of 4 Diamiter of Piston in inches 1.954 Area of Piston sq/in. 2.999 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 32 Fo,,. ,.GR . [� j-+ 6, T Sapaple- L ocation: ,. Report Numbers \ �1.-..rrt��ll Material Source: »�'� Project Name: Tested By: °' Project Number: Sample ID Number: MATERIALS LABORATORY WORKSHEET C B R Determination AS', M D 1883 Plot of CBR virs. Density % of compaction for CBR: Values are Dry Density for CBR= 97.9 from lin CBR at Dry Density— 811 formui CBR V Density y - 0 11 532,�e + 30.309x - 1490 15 r rn 10 M 8.1 V 5 0 80.0 82.0 84.0 86,0 88.0. 90.0 92.0 94.0 96.0 96.0 100.0 107.0 104.0 106.0 108 70 110.0 112.0 Dry density Condition of sample at preparation: Dry Density of sample befor Soaking: Dry Density of sample after Soaking: Moisture content ( %) befor compaction: Moisture content ( %) after compaction: Moisture content of top 1 in ( °10) after soaking: Moisture content averge (%) after soaking: Percent expansion: CBR at Specific Blows: Surcharge amount: Special sample preparation and testing Procedrues: Sample Identification-, Testing for Sample Identifaetion: Percent of Pluse #4: Note William W. McNaughton i ia W . J1�1 Manager: Materials Laboratory 10 Blows 25 Blows 56 Blows moist ❑ dry Q moist ❑ dry Q moist ❑ dry 89.16 95.81 103.01 92.16 93.92 101.81 20.38% 20.38% 20,38% 19.16% 19.16% 19.16% 23.43% 21.27% 20.07% 23.43% 21.27% 20.07% 0.2116% 5.3556% 2.5175% 127 1 4.44 798 Compacted at field moisture content 08 -019 PI H drometer and CBR 10% Satm. le rep over a l /4' Hardware Screen K :Z k0*811W41 - 06 - 0031 Springhill S°1t0\700 Cwv1\760 Cwp1yvi61 Sotl¢ & AsphahV(C8(a;•OS -0I9.xk Sham ry "t Page 4 of 4 z5 Blows �0 Blows �iii'r '�iiiIIlIIIi 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 33 VIT 1 0D Number: R e p ort UNWIS M 'cGMN Project Name: Is. EVEN Project Number: 91am-GAWAMIMM MATERIALS LABORATORY COMPUTATION SHEET Atterberg Limits Determination D 4318 SAMPLE DATA: Sample Location: Material Source: Sample ID #- Dat Date Tested: Tested )By: Plastic Limit Can No. Wet weight soil + can ( a)-. Dry weight soil + can (b): Weight can ( c ): Dry weight soil:(d')=(6-c) ;' Weight moisturo(e)-(a-b)-. %Moist (e/d)x100: First value of formula Last value of formula � -.A AIR91 -1- CA �tkg so '75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 O 35 30 25 20 is 10 5 Q I I Material! Organic? ❑ yEs Liqui Lun 3 5.8 P last ic � Lia R Reviewed By . ? , E� y Plasicity In &W 7. William W. MNaughtoa Soil Classification: CL rpf)-�= %V� V - gWdV4Vht" Manager. at 'a s Laboratory KAVm)Jvs0t4it3'101-N-M3l Spd. .h"l Sui,%A799 C"0760 C4QVI)1761 Soil, A"hakVPI-08.01 Comp St., For 2 Point Test Method 10 8 Z co 6 o 10 Slow count 25 100 05/09/2008 02:16 23BB181 XCELL PAGE 34 FoR Report Number . Project Ns:oae : Springhill Suites d�66drlaf�6.uc� Project Number: 01 -08 -0031 Report to : Copies to : MATERMLS LABORATORY REPORT Atterberg Limits Determination D 4318 Sample Location: Test Pit Material Sottree: Sample ID #: 08 -0 19 Date Obtained: Date Tested. Liquid Limit: 35.8 Plasicity Index: 17,1 Tested By: WWM Plastic Limit: 18.7 Soil Classification CL � o Reviewed By: William W. M � .9 ilrucm. J • - WcNaugfi ton $ MarJageX: Materials Laboratory K17an He.pitoilpMl•09.0631 SpcinO71 Suitq \706 Ca "zt1760 Comyty%76t 307,& A:pi&[vf- os- pi9,, is]PT CompShed 60.0 Equation for "A" Line / Horizontal at PI=4 to LL =25.5 "A" then PI +0.73' x:(LL -20) u'une Line so.o / / Equation for "U" Line Vertical at LL =16 to PI =7 then P1 =0.9 X (LL-8) � CH -0H 40.0 MH-OH / 0.0 r .9 30,0 ML-OL 0.0 A, CL-OL 20.0 1 O 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0. 80.0 90.0 100.0 110,0 Liquid Limit (LL) � o Reviewed By: William W. M � .9 ilrucm. J • - WcNaugfi ton $ MarJageX: Materials Laboratory K17an He.pitoilpMl•09.0631 SpcinO71 Suitq \706 Ca "zt1760 Comyty%76t 307,& A:pi&[vf- os- pi9,, is]PT CompShed MH-OH / 0.0 r ML-OL 0.0 ton $ MarJageX: Materials Laboratory K17an He.pitoilpMl•09.0631 SpcinO71 Suitq \706 Ca "zt1760 Comyty%76t 307,& A:pi&[vf- os- pi9,, is]PT CompShed f 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL .. m r N r � l lo PAGE 14 A *1 7� r w T W 10 . u �i a CO) Y is �o /, O t� , - - . AA(`iHl� E,5/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 11 Asphalt Pavement — Truck Tr ffic and Access Lanes • 2.5 "- Class III asphalt concrete top course • 5.0 "- 3 /- inch - minus, crushed sand and gravel base course • 11.0 " - Pit -run sand and gravel subbase course Rigid Pavement 5pdnghIll Suites Ftexburg,ID P08002 Page 8 • 5 "- Portland Cement concrete having a 28 day compressive strength of 4000 psi and air entrainment of 5% ±/- 1 % • 6.0 "- YAnch- minus, crushed sand and gravel base course The above - recommended flexible pavement sections are based on a 20 -year design life and traffic volumes as shown on the Flexible Pavement Design calculations in the appendix. Each section assumes proper preparation of subgrade to achieve a stable, unyielding, compacted surface on which to place subbase, base and pavement. Asphalt and aggregate support characteristics were estimated based on' our experience with aggregate materials in the area and the CBR test results. The. subbase should consist. of. 6- inch - minus; well- graded sand and gravel consistent with less than 10 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The base course should consist of 3/4 -inch- minus, well - graded, crushed sand and gravel with 3 to 9 percent passing the No. 200 sieve. The subbase and base course should be' compacted to structural fill requirements. The asphalt concrete for flexible pavement should have material properties as specified in.ASTM D 3515 and have a mix design with a maximum aggregate size from 3/4 to 3/8 inch. The asphalt concrete should be compacted to at least _92% and not more than 95% of the maximum theoretical density determined by the mix design. We recommend crack maintenance be accomplished in all pavement areas as needed and at. least every two to three years to reduce the potential for surface water infiltration into the pavement section and underlying subgrade. Therefore, we recommend the subgrade, base and asphalt surfaces slope at no less.than one percent to an appropriate storm water disposal system or other appropriate location that does not impact adjacent structures. The life of the pavement will be dependent on achieving adequate drainage throughout the section, especially at the subgrade, since water that ponds at the subgrade surface can induce heaving during freeze -thaw processes. REVIEW OF PLANS The Engineer should be retained to review final plans for the proposed project to evaluate our geotechnical recommendations and provide amendments to this report based on actual structure configurations and loading conditions. Without reviewing the project plans, we cannot be responsible for the geotechnical recommendations provided herein. F6464rf 64 E4Mff&W 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCEH PAGE 12 Springhill suites Rexburg, ID P08002 Page 9 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION AND TESTING It is our opinion the success of the proposed construction will be dependent on following the report recommendations, good construction practices and providing the necessary geotechnical construction observation, testing and consultation to verify the work has been completed as recommended. We recommend the Engineer be retained to provide geotechnical observation, testing and consultation services, to verify our report recommendations and related project specifications are being followed. If we are not retained. to perform the recommended services, we cannot be responsible for geotechnical related construction errors or omissions. EVALUATION LIMITATIONS The opinions and recommendations contained in this report are based on findings and observations made at the time of our subsurface evaluation. Our services . consist of professional opinions and recommendations made in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. This acknowledgement is in lieu of all warranties, either expressed or implied. This document has been prepared to provide geotechnical information to the engineering design team during the initial stages of project design. It is understood that changes and modifications to the proposed project may occur. The following plates accompany and complete this report: Plate 1_: :Site Plan, Rexburg Springhill Suites Plate 2: Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Appendix: Exploratory Logs Seismic Design Response Spectrum Bearing Capacity — Meyerhof Lateral Earth Pressures Flexible Pavement Design — Flexible Pavement Design — Access Lanes Laboratory Test Results godd6if &W sz &ace 5 _01 S 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 06 Springhill Suites Rexburg, It) P08002 Page 3 improvements. The owner and design team should accept that the following specific site preparation and geotechnical improvements to the soil conditions beneath buildings' and foundations will be required. Our engineering analyses and this report were prepared primarily to identify general soil and groundwater characteristics to facilitate project planning and design. Dewatering is not anticipated and conventional foundations will be adequate for support of the proposed building, provided the recommendations in this report are implemented. GEOTECNNICAL OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Primary concerns associated with construction on the site include site preparation of subsurface soils, bearing capacity in light of potentially saturated bearing soils and frost sensitive soil. Our recommendations are based on the relatively uniform subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits. When design plans are finalized, we should be notified to review this report. The Engineer should be involved with the contractor(s) as construction plans are implemented. Geotechnica/ Considerations Site and Subgrade Preparation At the time of our evaluation vegetation on the site was minimal and extensive stripping and grubbing will not be required unless the site is allowed to grow over prior to construction. Soil in the building and pavement areas should be free from vegetation and debris and should be proof rolled using a riding compactor with a drum weight of at least five tons. Soft or unsuitable soil should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill as outlined in the structural fill section of this report. Frost or frozen soil should not be used as fill or incorporated into fill. The day is moisture sensitive and will lose much of its shear strength if it is wetted. Firm, wet clay soil will rapidly begin to pump and . rut when subjected to wheeled traffic. Wet weather earthwork recommendations as included in this report should be followed if construction is undertaken during wet conditions. If the subgrade exposed by grading or removal of vegetation is disturbed or becomes unstable during the excavation process it should be removed and replaced with compacted structural fill. We recommend the upper 12 inches of silty clay be removed and replaced with structural fill compacted to at least 95% of its maximum dry density per ASTM D -698 as discussed in the Structural Fill section of this report prior to placement of structural fill. Wet Weather/Wet Soil Construction Winter and spring months typically exhibit inclement weather and generally poor construction conditions. The on -site soils may become unstable if they are wet when subjected to wheeled traffic or construction loads. If construction commences before soil can dry after precipitation or during wet periods of the year, earthwork should be Fwf4iy 0* Sweffewe S. s e-" 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 07 Springhill Suites Rexburg, ID PM002 Page 4 performed by low - pressure, track- mounted equipment that spread the vehicle load. All soft or disturbed soil should be removed as outlined in the. Site and Subgrade Preparation section of this report. Material placement and compaction should be performed so as to prevent pumping and disturbance of the underlying soil. During construction, runoff from precipitation should be intercepted and diverted to prevent erosion and /or ponding of water within the project excavation. The Engineer should be periodically present during excavation and subgrade preparations to verify that no soft, saturated or disturbed areas exist prior to placing structural fill. Wet to saturated conditions may be encountered during foundation excavations and subgrade preparation. The contractor should expect these conditions and be equipped with equipment and material sources to replace wet or disturbed soil with granular structural fill. If significant disturbed soil conditions are encountered, the use of a woven geotextile fabric over excavated areas may be necessary. The Engineer should be consulted before placing any geotextile fabric. Once final subgrade is achieved, it will be the contractor's responsibility to maintain soil shear strength and prevent it from degrading under construction traffic and /or wet weather. Initial footing excavations should not be initiated within 24 hours before expected precipitation, f=rozen soil is unsuitable for us as .structural fill. Concrete or structural fill should never be placed over frozen soil. The condition of the subgrade and careful construction procedures are critical to foundation and slab stability and long -term performance of foundations. Slope Stability for Temporary Excavation and Cuts We expect most contractors will use open- excavation methods to achieve the desired subgrade and stable side slopes. Trench excavations are expected for pipe utilities connecting to the planned improvements. Excavations, including. trench construction and earthwork, should be constructed according the OSHA excavation regulations, Document 29, CFR Part 1926, Occupation Safety and Health Standards — Excavations; Final Rule. In general, the subsurface conditions to 10 feet have been classified as cohesionless type C soil according to the OSHA criteria. Class C soil typically cannot be sloped steeper than 1Y2 to 1 H: V (horizontal to vertical). Excavations up to 4 feet deep may have vertical sidewalls. Deeper excavations must be sloped or shored and braced with some type of lateral support and protection (designed by a licensed engineer). Design of excavations and /or excavation support structures for excavations deeper than 4 feet in the type C soil will require design calculations and a report by a licensed qualified engineer submitted to OSHA. The contractor will ultimately be responsible for excavation stability and site safety as soil and groundwater conditions can vary. Isolated, local flattening of slopes may be required- Temporary trench excavation support in the form of steel trench boxes, steel or timber shoring, and other means of trench wall protection can be used for the project. If trench boxes or other means of temporary support of pipe excavations is utilized, the trench box or shoring should be of sufficient width to be able to install the pipe, pipe 6 'W rAC' 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL PAGE 08 bedding, and provide safe and productive working conditions. We licensed engineer design any shoring plans required for excavation_ Springhill Sukes Rexburg. ID P08002 Page 5 recommend a Minor sloughing of the soil, represented in this report, could occur, requiring appropriate maintenance and protection for workers and equipment. Localized perched groundwater, subsequent to dewatering, may cause local flowing soil conditions and excavation instability. Caving will cause trench boxes to become lodged, requiring additional time to remove soil debris adjacent to, and confining the box and to move the box to a new location. Rain and other water sources will increase the potential for caving and sloughing of the soils. Excavation equipment and other construction procedures must be selected to avoid inducing dynamic loading (vibration) which could increase soil pore water pressure causing local instability, which may lead to both side slope and foundation soil instability in excavations. Subsurface soil conditions and the engineering properties of the soil will vary. We recommend geotechnical assessment of the soil conditions during construction to maintain project safety and production if deep trenching is planned. The assessment may take the form of qualitative, visual observations of the general soil conditions and performance as the soil is exposed. This may also include obtaining soil samples for laboratory testing and analyses, consulting. with the project contractor and their operators relative to excavation ease (or difficulty), constructability and other safety issues. The contractor may use OSHA as a resource to provide periodic advice and to address questions or concerns. Structural Fill Structural fill should consist of granular soils. Structural fill should not contain debris, frozen clods, vegetation or organic matter. and should consist of granular soil classified as GW, GP or GM as designated by the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), Plate 2. Structural fill should not contain rocks or aggregate larger than 6 inches in diameter. Granular drain rock should be 2- 3 inches in diameter and should be free draining. The on -site sand /silt/gravel soil may be used as structural fill, but will require sufficient moisture conditioning to allow the contractor to achieve compaction. The contractor should anticipate moisture conditioning when using the native soils. - Imported structural fill must meet the above criteria and should be moisture conditioned to achieve compaction. We recommend structural fill be placed in maximum eight- inch -thick, loose lifts at near-optimum moisture content. Structural fill placed at the site should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density of the soil as determined by ASTM D 698 (standard Proctor). We recommend the Engineer be requested to provide construction observation to help establish compaction methods and parameters and to verify that compaction specifications are met. These compaction requirements assume large (five -ton drum weight or larger) compaction equipment such as sheep's -foot rollers or smooth -drum rollers will be utilized. The lift thickness must be reduced when using light compaction equipment with less than five ton drum weight. If earthwork and structural fill placement is completed V aft $z" 2.?&" SM e"—fta 05/09/2008 02:16 2388181 XCELL REPORT Geotechnical Evaluation Springhill Suites Idaho Falls, ID INTRODUCTION PAGE 04 This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering evaluation for the proposed Springhill Suites development in Rexburg as shown on the attached site plan, plate 1. The purpose of this evaluation was to characterize the subsurface soil and water conditions to prepare geotechnical opinions and recommendations for planning, design and construction of the facility. To accomplish this evaluation, we performed the following services: 1. Reviewed data from evaluations near the site and reviewed conceptual drawings for the plant. 2. Coordinated with Digline to avoid existing utilities at the site. 3. Observed 5 exploratory test pits at the site. The soils encountered were described and classified referencing ASTM D 2488 and D 2487, Unified Soil Classification System (USCS). Select soil samples were obtained for laboratory testing and the soil profile was logged. 4. Analyzed soil test data to provide engineering and construction earthwork recommendations. 5. Performed analyses based on project plans and prepared geotechnical recommendations for foundation bearing soil, allowable bearing pressure, excavation characteristics, temporary excavations, structural fill and earthwork and seismicity. 6. Three bound copies of this report have been provided. PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION We understand plans for construction include the following as shown on the attached site plan: • Two four story motel buildings comprised of approximately 100 units each • Two one to two story retail buildings • Parking for approximately 260 vehicles consisting of asphalt pavement and rigid pavement for sidewalks, access aprons and for trash enclosures. 96 'W $xed&.Ow Ev4 S (,--- "