order No, 25545 plat of preliminar'Y press Springs S~11vision precinct 4 5ept~r 14, 1998 Vol V Page 792 ORDER N0. c5545 AF'PROVRL.. OF F'REL.IMINRRY F'LRT OF CYPRESS SPRINGS SUPDIVISION, PRECINCT 4 AND GRRNT VRRIRNCE On this day the 14th day of September, 1998 upon motion macie by Commissioner Oehler, seconded by Judge Denson, the Court approved 6y a vote of 4-1-0, with Commissioner- Paldwin opposing, the pr•eliminar•y plat of Cypress Springs S~ahdivisi.on, F'r•ecinct 4 and grant variance to ~_ise on-site material to build roads the same or close to sattie q~_iality as Type '~ Cr°~_ished Pase and access roads will be at a 9~ dragr•ee angle and ir~cl~_rde a nntati.nn on the plat that this subdivision is a gated comm~.rnity. COMMISSIONERS' COURT AGENDA REQUEST '~ "PLEASE FURNISH ONE ORIGINAL AND FIVE COPIES OF THIS REQUEST AND DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY THE COURT MADE BY: Franklin Johnston. P.E. MEETING DATE: September 15. 1998 OFFICE: Road & Bridge Department TIME PREFERRED: SUBJECT:(PLEASE BE SPECIFIC): Consider Preliminary for Cypress S n~'ngs Subdivision in EXECUTIVE SESSION REQUESTED: YES NO ~_ PLEASE STATE REASON: Consider Preliminary for Cypress Springs Subdivision. Pct. 4 cSTIMATED LENGTH OF PRESENTATION: 10 minutes PERSONNEL MATTER -NAME OF EMPLOYEE: NAME OF PERSON ADDRESSING THE COURT: Franklin JohnstoNLee Voelkel/Gary Moran Time for submitting this request for Court to assure that the matter is posted in accordance with Tkle 5, Chapters 551 & 552 of the Government Code is as folbws. Meetings held on first Monday: 5:00 P.M. previous Tuesday Meetings held on Thursdays: 5:00 P.M. prevous Thursday THIS REQUEST RECEIVED BY: THIS REQUEST RECEIVED ON: All Agenda Requests will be screened by the County Judges Office to determine H adequate information has been prepared for the Courts formal consideration and action at time of Court meetings. Your ccoperetbn will be appreciated and contribute towards your /'`equest being addressed at the earliest opportunity. See Agenda Request Guidelines. Subdivisbn Name Cypress Springs Estates, Phase I Developer Hoyt Whidbee & Gary Moran ~ surveyor Lee Voelkel Date Initiated 7/27/98 Phone # - :•_•_:.::•'rii~•.31L:'L:LLil.:••::•L:L!'!.l~......L~ii::•~:3:.l.L: i.l ~~!•S l.:.:.L:.: i'. S•«.' C.....L ,L:LIy...:y'.IJJ ~....,Pli•!4.l.p ~ •.q.l: •• ;.T.i :•' i~'re.ly. :.LL LL:....:.21.'::L:3:L :._L::.L:.L ::L_:_.t:a.:'Sl::i::C:•::._L:.:_ ::._..::.e.:.e..: r.:: ~ a:..i:l9:3 :l:Ll:.:Li.L...7:E.:_.._.: !_i ~ ...:CI77._.-.._....l~:i~.~~:.._.lTl~:~.._.i:::i:i....._...... Yes/No Approval Dates 8 Numbers Pd _~= Plat e/~ ...... Replat C°ncePt Plan DaEe ® Court Order # Minor Replat City ETJ Preliminary Court Date 9/14/98 Court Ordar# Chy ~~~ Number of Lots Publk: Hearing Date • • • • • • • • • •= Acres of Land ~_ Final Plat Date Court Order # County Ckxk Dues Pakl 50.00 ......:. Compkste ~~_. Environmental Dues Pakt 275.00 ..:.... On Site Sewage Checked e~/ s Fkrod Plain Checked ~/es Water Approved By Whom Water Approved I(i,have central water _,_„ _ ~ cneokea wHh gtt e~ ..____.__._.._.._...____.~. _.~_. Telephone Co Checked 8~ ..__._._.....__..__._.__..__._...__._..._._________________.___ Ek+ctric Utility Checked e.~ TxDotChecked e~ .:.:.:LL~.:_•.L.:~.:~:..L:.:LLL:L:.:.:.:Y:.L:.:.:i:.•_:i:~LL: • '.:~ •.Li.:~.:.:.L:.:~.:J.:.].:.:.:.:.:.LLL:.:.:~.L:.:.:.L:J.:.:.:.:L:.:S.:.L~...._..~._.._..:~.L:.L:3.:.:.:.LL:.i.:.:.:.':.LL:3:i.:.:J .:.:.:.:.:.:.:: Roads er~ Date Roads will be taken County Maintained n0 for County Maintenance Private Roads erg Date of Letter of Credk Letter of CredR Performance Bond Date Performance Bond Maintenance Bond Date Maintenance Bond Roed Names Comments Truby/$ubplatafrnpro Guadalupe Basin Natural Rewurces Center 125 Lehmann Drive Ste. t00 Kem[ne, Texas 7sozs-s9oe (830)896-SggS Fax(830)257•z62( E•maiL ugmadm®ktcwm August 31, 1998 Voelkel Engineering 212 Clay Street Kerrv~7le, Texas 78028 ltE: Cypress Springs Estates Phase I Dear 14fr. VoelkeL• UG]LA has reviewed the subject plat for floodplain management (Kerr County Flood Protection Order) and on-site septic fac2lity design and construction wmpliance. A copy of the review is attached. Please note comments and make appropriate corrections or coated us for a discussion if you take exception to our findings. We look forward to the final approval of your proposed plat. If we can be of further assistance in this matter, call on ^~ enclosure - 1 cc: Mr. Franklin Johnson, P.E. Kerr County Engineer (w/enclosure) UGRA Subdivision Files (w/enclosure) .§~?:e` 1te`~k.p~ i ~ Upper Guadalupe River Authority Hydraulic & Environmental Services Guadalupe Basin Natural Resources Center 125I.e6m~nn DAvq Bdte 100. Kemmq Tezaa 78028-5908 Phone: (830)896-5445 Fa:: (830)257-2621 1"rmail: permit~ugraorg Preliminary Plat Review Subdivision: Cypress Sprirts;S Estates Phase I Developer: ~'t Wtu.dbee/C,ary Moran Date Submitted: August 25 , 1998 Company Name: Voelkel Fligineer ing Contact Person: Lee C. Voelkel Company Address (saect. ay, swa, z~P~: 212 Clay Street Kerrville, Texas 78028 Phone No. 257-3313 Fax No. 1. Floodplain Reviewed By: ~~-'~-~ ~ Date: ~ 4P Recommendations: ~OROPQ/. ~. 9~GY /NO/C,9siE0 nd ~EaER.tC AIDT~t" WFfs/E ror ~PEDw„zFd /~F L,ryiwneN of govt °!3p o~'PLfT L~E7rREp. , , 2. OSSF Reviewed By: ~Cs.~k.l. .,,/ ~.L~ Date: d1 L ~ FY Recommendations: NovE Qsolau lelristr .~ O.eo~a2 s e~o.~ilc,c or' QE/a.6 fEicvEO /3Y i.voiv~oN.rc orrf ~i 3. HUWCD Reviewed By: ~~~~.- / I~4 Date: g zp F8 Recommendations: /VeNE ; /F ~As+ flteaw.+sscy 2CfiGe'crs T~e SE.~.~-C f ~vY /JT/N6. tl F4Tf(/1E ~/.EGL.t. l/er/kc/ F.,y~irs~teirG t/,// f c~ 4. Other Recommendations Reviewed By: Recommendations: ~a••t of Date: /'e~Y or I~~~ s~d~P/1lad/ML/L s/urr~? General Ma er: Date: ~-3/-~ Comments: V UGRA FORM NO~~-d0S ~~'" . . . APPENDIX I , . .. . ., . . . .. .._a ... 4.- .:~- . ..., . ROUTING SLIP , - .:~,:; ~, ,- . „ ,. for:, -. _ . ~,< , ~ - PRELDYIINARY PLATTING [X] Preliminary Plat [ - ] Preliminary Replat Fiom: HOYT 4LHIDBEE~ and GARY MORAN Address: _tF4R ^idn~y=$akar S: ga.-.,,• a t _, ~r.r Recorded Plat PLAT NAME: CYPRESS SPRINGS ESTAT"S P`as^ t Volume -Page AGENDA DATE REQUESTED: s^nt~mbPr 14, 1?98 1. Submit six (6) copies of Plat and Drainage Study to the Kerr County Engineer, for Review Thirty (30).days prior to Commissioner's Court Date.** One will be forwarded immediately to the Commissioner of the Precinct in which the Preliminary Plat or Preliminary Replat Lies. Received by: 8' ~6 ~ Date 2. Submit one (i) Copy of Preliminary Plat to County Clerk and arrange for payment of fees per Kerr County Subdivision Rules & Regulations. [ ] Preliminary Plat [ ] Preliminary Replat pp,, Amount Paid $ . ~o Signature: ~~~ -~_ ~QQ~ g ~ ~O /~'n tJ~ (County~/~(Cle/rk~sO\ffice) Date (~ _1 .r]A i ~ ~.d \V ~ \(1 w w i .C1i 1~.~ tell ~11 3. Submit one (1) copy of Preliminary Plat to Upper Guadalupe River Authority pQ] Permit application and support data for On-site Sewage Facilities [ ] Flood Plain information Fee Amount Paid $ °2? ~ o' Received by: ~~'"° ` ~ r ~~ Date (1 of 2) APP~~ Kerr County Subdivision Rules & Regulations May 11, 1998 Paae 17 4. 911 STREET NAMES (if applicable): The attached Plat is for Preliminary Review. The ^ street names shown on the Plat are not duplicates as defined in Kerr 911 guidelines, and are approved for the Final Plat 911 guidelines. (Add this as signature block on plats.) Discuss with the Surve~o~r/E ear and potential problems. - _ a _ ...._z .. -~: - Stgnaluce ~ - - - - ; n~~~~3~ . .. ~. 5 - If Pht ' includes ali utili easements or" es to as _ . ' "` ""` ~8 ~ Y h' c~8 ~ extshng easement notification of the Utthties involved are regtured fq P,,~tf~U„tt~it~yehal(give ~; ; S1uv~eyoclEngineec easement n`otes` -. _ 1. Blearic. Utility: i::111-tr„~r;• ~! 2 i tt;~.~r telephone Company: ,~ (This shall be added to Final ~,.. ~. ,.. applicable) Fax copies acceptable. __. ` r^ 6. lfPlatting has access to Texas Department of Transportation Roadway a copy of Preliminary Plat must be reviewed by the TXDOT Engineer. Signature on this form indicates receipt of Preliminary Plat, sign mylar for final approval. Signaturei~~'~!~~~.~.l-r-fz..~w~ v ~ LS S (t7~f Engineer. )-T Date ;_ ':..... ~_.'T .`You must /hen COMPLETE this form mrd return it to the County Engineer Fifteen (!S) days before Commissioner's Court Agenda Date. (2 of 2) appendix ICeir Comty Subdivision Rules .t Regulations May 11, 1998 Pace 1 R .- Flexible Base Specifications,. Soil Test Summary Grade 3 Caliche Sam le # Source LL PI Comments 1 Twin S rin s 68 45 Out or S ec 2 Twin S ri s 54 3fi Out o~ ec 3 Twin S rin s 42 22 Out of- ec 4 Twin S rin s 4~ 2~ Out of 6 c 5 Twin S rin s 52 34 Out of S c 6 C Tess S rin s 2fi 4 fi°~-over No. 40 sieve 101 Griffin 22 2 Type A, grade 1 Flexible Base Certified b Raba Kistner .-, Kerr County Road & Bridge 4010 San Amonio Hwy. ''1 Kerrville, TX 78028 830 257-2993 FAX (830) 896-8481 TO: Commissioners Court FROM: Franklin Johnston, P.E. DATE: 9/8/98 RE: Cypress Spring Estates, Phase I Variances Requested 1. All roads shown on the Preliminary Plat are "local roads" per Ken County Subdivision Hiles. They are seeking a variance for Cypress Mill Road, Cypress Garden Road, and Cypress Road from the `9oca1 road" specifications to paved "country lane" specifications. They are using the definition of country lane "... or instances where the road serves less than 151ots." In considering this variance you will be making a policy decision which could change the subdivision Hiles. Dces the "151ots" refer to an entire subdivision or refer to the Iast 151ots along a "local road" and therefore the `9ocal ~,, road" is to be considered to change to a "country lane" when facing the last 151ots. My rewmmendation is that both Cypress Springs Road and Cypress Mill Road remain as local roads for the following reasons: a) Both roads extend beyond the limits of Phase I. b) Both roads have more than 151ots. 2. The second proposed variance is for changes to base material for the local road. The essence of the different road classification is the base material, and by changing the base specifications, the road is lowered by one class, but the name remains. My recommendation is that they do not meet the threshold of Section 4, Ken County Subdivision Rules for a variance. Other items need to meet Kerr County Subdivision Regulations We received test results from six samples of on-site caliche. Only sample six comes close to meeting the specifications for Caliche, Grade 3. Please note that on-site material shall be tested and stockpiled as specified in appendix J. Stockpiled material shall be adequate to complete the entire job and several random tests made to insure consistency. We also received one test report on flexible base Type A, Grade 1 from Henry Griffin Sand & Gravel. This too shall be stockpiled, adequate quantity to wmplete the project and several tests made on site from the stockpile. .-~ 2. A drainage study per Section 5.07, Kerr County Subdivision Rules before final plat approval. 3. Nine lots do not have minimum frontage per Section 4.04, Kerr County Subdivision Rules. 4. The water system will be built in accordance with Section 5.03, Kerr County Subdivision Rules. This means approval by TNRCC and the plans and specifications be famished to Kerr County prior to plat approval. 5. The design of Cypress Springs Road where it makes a "Z" turn does not conform to Section 5.02D, Kerr County Subdivision Rules. I have discussed an alternate layout with I.ee Vcelkel concerning this problem. .- `-"~~~~ xxxcur ~r~xxr,aMnxxc rErwsa~.x~oxv.nn DATE: August 24, 1998 MEMO TO: Fmnk Johnston Kerr County Engincer FROM: L.cc C. Voclkcl SUBJECT: Cypress Springs Esmtcs Phase I Frank: The owners of the about rcfcrcuced property arc requesting a prclimiuary plat Lcariug Cor the September 14, 1998 meeting of Commissioners Court. I am submitting to you a packed of information for your review which includes the following: 1) copy of the preliminary plat 2) copy of the preliminary plat topographic map ,~ 3) copy of the preliminary plat water distribution plan 4) copy of the preliminary plat on-site sewage facility plan 5) teller to Commissioners Court (dated 08/24/98) requesting variance from road specifications 6) soil analysis for proposed road material 7) report to Mark Bowers for waste disposll plan 8) additional soil analysis reports 9) copy of EPA application for -information received from lim Brown prior to August 10 mceling of Commissioners Court Please call me if you have any questions or if you would like to mcet with the owners prior to the September 14 mceling daft. Thank you. as w+mun. iuwrwaa raw ros. maraca August 24, 1998 Kcrr County Commissions Cmcrt Kcrr County Courthouse Kemille, Texas 78028 Commissioners: My clients, Hoyt Whidbee and Gary Moran are respectfully requesting a variance from specific road speciftptions as they would apply to their property intended for development. The owners have prepared a preliminary plat for Phase I of Cypress Springs Estates (see accompanying plat). The roads for this development are to be privately owned and privately maintained by the property owners association. There is a gated entry planned for access of State Highway No. 39. Tice roads and road classifiptions for the proposed Phase I arc as follows: Cypress Springs Road -Local Road Cypress Mill Road -Paved Country Lane Cypress Garden Road -Paved Country Lane C}Press Road -Paved Country l.anc The roads will be built to Kcrr County specifications for county lanes and local roads. The owners arc requesting one exception from the specifications for local roads. The base material specs for these roads includes T}•pe C, Grade 2 material (crushed stone). The otwicrs would like to use the base material for wunlry lanes - pliche Grade 3 - to build this local road. Me Moran has hired a soil testing lab to analyze bast material found on the property. [ am enclosing topics of these lest resuhs for your review. Plcasc note that ibis material lcstcd very closely to the specs for Grade 2. ht considering this request for a variance from the croshcd stone rcquircmcnt for base material, the owners make the following points: 1. The road will be private and privately maintained. 2. The road will have a gated entry. 3. The road only scncs this development and accesses uo adjoining property. 4. On-sire road material has been lcstcd with favorable results. Thank you for your time and consideration of this matter. Sincerely, ~ ~. V Lcc C. Voclkcl Fob R~~ LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL w!~ Fupro South, Inc. ~ ;,~=>uR O 71008 Ospood San AMa~o, Taus 78233 Ptans: (210) BSS~B.518 Fax (210) tS5-9519 TO: M Builders 448 Sidney Bailer South, Ste. 107 Kenville, TX 78028 , ATTENTION: Mr. Gary Motgan Project: Cypress Springs Date: August 14,1998 •Our Project No.: 1002 - 3753 Your Project No This tnnsmitfal Includes Construction Materials Test Reports related to tha above referenced construction project These reports are fransmhted for your infonnafbn and use. Tha following reports an attached Data ar Number Daseripaon Sample No. 8 Laboratory Test Results Remarks: ..:r. , :a?,At e:.,. Distribution: M Buiititejs, Mr.~atyll~gigan (1) Project File (1) ACCa[OI Fugro South, Inc. , Submitted by: ~ ~~ ,David etcher, P.E. LABORATORY TEST REPORT MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP HERO FUORO SOUTH, INC, ,IOOe O~appy e.n Ationb, Tm~ 70177 PI'1: Q10)aeeible Fix: txto) aeese/a Job No.: 1002-3753 Project: Cypress Springs Test Date: 8/12!98 Location: Ingram, Texas Client: M-Builders Contractor. WA Visual Classification: Tan Sandy Gravel Sample Source: Onsite Material, Sampled 8/11/98 Test Method: TIX 113E 'iSample Identification: Sample No. 8, Leb Ref. No, 7853 Rammer Type: Mechanical Prep. Method: Wet Results: Atterberg Limits: Maximum Dry Density 128.4 Ibs/cu-ft Liquid Limit 26 Optimum Moisture Content 9.0 % Plastic Limit 22 Plasticity Index 4 Specific Gravity: 2.7 (Estimated) 136 0 . 3ao t 132 0 . 130.0 ~ 128 0 . s m 126 0 . Z D ~ 124.0 122.0 0 120. 9C Test Values 116.0 • • - • •Zaro Ak Void lJne 116.0 0.0 20 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 120 14.0 18.0 18.0 20.0 Water Content, % r-~ By: cm Check By; Cindy Miller, AET. Date: 8/14/98 THE A60VE TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE n'EMS TESTED. PHIS REPORT SHALL NOT aE REPRODUCED, EXCEPT iN FULL, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF FUGRO SOUTH, INC. .^-~ LABORATORY TEST REPORT °R° FUGRCSOUr"''"°' „~ °.,~ Ban Mbnb, Tms 7l17J PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS FA"X.,a;leee066'6„'; Job No.: 1002-3753 Projed: Cypress Springs Test Date: 8/12198 Location: Ingrem, Texas Client: M-Builders Contrador. WA Usual Classification: Tan Sandy Gravel Sample Source: Onsite Material, Sampled 8/11/98 Sample IdentlflCation: Sam Ie No, 6; Lab Ref. No. 7853 Doc. No.: 3753sa6.xls Tare Weight (gm): 0.00 Test Method: Tex 110-E Dry Soil Mass + Tare (gm): 79,988.08 Prep. Method: Wet Prep. Dry Soil After Wash + Tare: 76,090,70 Dry Mass of Soii Before Test (gm): 79,988.08 U.S. Standard Steve No. Weight Retained Cumulative, m ~ Retained Cumulative °k Finer Cumulative Projed Specification Percent Finer Comments 3 in. 2-1/2 in. 0.00 0,0 100.0 - 2 in. _ 1-3/41n. 3,670.00 4.6 95.4 - 1-1/2 in. - 1-1/4 in. 11,070.00 13.8 66.2 - 1 in. 7/8 in. 20,295.00 25.4 74.6 - 3/4 in. _ 5!6 in. 1/2 in. 3/8 in. 44,020.00 55,0 45.0 - 1/4 in. _ No.4 56,450.00 70.6 / 29.4 - No. 8 _ No. 10 _ No. 16 _ No. 20 _ No. 30 _ No. 40 73,220.68 91.5 8.5 (°°70 owl No. 50 _ No. 80 No. 100 No. 140 No. 200 REMARKS: Input By.: vp Checked ey: Cindy Miller, AET Date: 6/14/98 THE A80VE TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT eE REPRODUCED, EXCEPT IN FULL, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF FUGRO SOUTH, INC. FUGR H, iNC• 100 uasiu~a~aee 4 3 2 1-1t2 _ ~rrr~>~-- t 66 T P v 50 c ti v A0 d o. 1 GRAIN SIZE CURVE s 1 a 1 s 20 ~ ao 0.001 ~~ pata:~ Job No: 1002'3753 Tess S rin s p~oJeck µatarW: Tans Gravet~--~^~~ ~- 0.1 1 GnM 5-Za In.M00me~ _~ M~~; ?ex 110-E LABORATORY TEST REPORT GRa FUGROSOU I, INC. „ooo o.~ Din MbNo, T~ , 7677.1 ATTERBERG LIMITS ~;a°%~;' '; Job No.: 1002-3753 Protect: Cypress Springs Test Date: 8/12/98 Location: Ingram, Texas CBent M-Builders Contractor. WA Visual Classification: Tan Sandy Gravel Sample Source: Onsite Material, Sampled 8/11/98 Sample identification: Sample No. 6, Lab Ref. No. 7853 Test Method: ASTM D-4318, M hod A m rvo. uU ~ rlc vc et Wt + Tare (gm) 38.14 37.28 38.93 y Wt + Tare (gm) 33.45 32.98 34.56 ire Wt (gm) 16.76 16.65 16.97 L of Dry Sample 16.69 16.33 17.59 L of Water 4.69 4.30 4.37 Moisture (W,J 28.1 26.3 24.8 ,~-- 26 26 I 26 ~ Liquid Limit Value at 25 Blows e >< z Y ~ O U Y 24 22 to is zo zs so as 40 45 50 Number of Blows, (N) ATTERBERGI AR Samole ec. LL 26 PL 22 - PI 4 - PI = LL - 'Calculated Liqui Limit LL = W~ (N12~ ~"' Nhere: W„ =Moisture Conten rt N Blows N = Number of Blow STIC OMIT DETER MINATION No. TQ BW Wt. + Tare (gm) 26.57 27.35 Wt. + Tare (gm) 24.75 25.47 I Wt. (gm) 16.58 17.01 of Dry Sample 8.17 8.46 of Water 1.82 1.68 .tic Limit PL 22 22 HARKS: it ey.: cm Check By: Cindy Miller, AET Date: 8/14/98 THE ABOVE TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT 8E REPRODUCED, EXCEPT IN FULL, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF FUGRO SOUTH ~~ V ~n~J~f1~T7LS nawrturzr.[gma ~rzw ~oafwaamn August 21, 1998 Mr. Mark Bowers Environmental Health Department 215 W. Water Kerrville, Texas 78028 RE: Subdivision Waste Disposal Approval Plan -Cypress Springs Estates Deaz Mr. Bowers, The proposed subdivision Iles outside the service azea of any organized disposal system The nearest central wastewater collection facility is in Kerrville, Texas. It is not feasible to provide central wastewater collection to the proposed subdivision. Each lot will therefore utilize on-site facilities. All lots in the proposed subdivision meet the minimum lot size requirement for the use of private sewage facilities served by a central water supply (1.0 acre minimum). SOIL SURVEY A soil survey was made on the lots in the proposed subdivision to determine soil suitability for on-site sewage facilities i- and evidence of shallow seasonal ground water. The soil composition can be descobed as Doss silty clay, Krum silty clay, Kemille-Real association, Ekran[ -Comfort association, Tarpley - Roughcreek associaflon, Denton silty clay and Nuvalde silty clay. No evidence of seasonal high ground water was noted. Drainage easements will be provided for surface drainage as noted on the final plat. These lots have slopes less than 5%. Soils on these lots are placed within Soil Resource Group C and Group D (Guide to Soil Suitability, 1988). An appropriate type of on-site sewage facility is the aerobic system or low pressure dosing system. Individual soil profile holes are recommended for each lot when the exact location of waster disposal areas are known. Properly designed, installed and maintained on-site sewage facilities may be used in the proposed subdivision without causing pollution or nuisance conditions. INTENDED CONSTRUCTION Development will be limited to one single family residence per lot. The average residence will likely be 2500 - 3000 sq. ft. WATER SUPPLY The tracts in this proposed subdivision will be served by a central water system approved by the TNRCC. FLOOD PLAIN AND WATERSHED CONSIDERATIONS No part of the proposed subdivision plat lies within the flood plain or iloodway of the Guadalupe River or any of its tributaries according to the FIRM for Kerr County, Community-Panel No. 480419 O150B. Construction of on-site sew,a~g~e fac~ili/ties1in the proposed,~subdiv`ision will not be affected by set-back requirements from State Water. r "v r V~~-'V- - Lee C. Vcelkel occur w~tv t r nn V1KtJCttnnN lAL HEALTH Ul;YAICI'MENT APPLICATION.FORLICENSING AUi'HORTfYRECOMMENDATION FOR ON-SITE SEWAGE FACILl7IES FOR PROPOSED SUBDMSIONS ~, DATE: August 21, 1998 NAME OF SUBDIVISION: Cgpress Springs Estates Phase I OWNER: Hoyt Whidbee/Gary Moran MAII.INGADDRESS: 448 Sidney Baker South TELEPHONE: 830/257-7475 BASIC FEE: S 75.00 PWS NUMBER OF LOTS ATSS EACH 5200.00 .~.~ SUBM1TfED .f 275.00 INSTRUCTIONS: The propose of requiring an authorization is to avoid problems. Malting a decision on the proper.installation of on-site sewage fatalities during the initial development of a subtlividan prevents the snaking of othei detasicns that wrllnot aIlow stiles and regulatitms to be met and prevent poIIution or injuryto'public health The information asked fur retlttaes an applicant to frilly investigate artd contemplate props sewage disposal It allows the licertsirrg authority to make an informed decision on the suitabrlity anduse of on-site sewage faclities. Attached is Chapter 9, Subdivision; of the Rules and Regulations of Kea County, Texas for On-Site' Sewage Faalities in its entirety, appropriate sections from the State Construction Standazds and Article 5 Sec. C'of the Kea County Flood Damage Prevention Order. Sec. 9.02 explains the information that must be supplied. An U.S.G.S. map is also recommended tb provide some of the information required. Complete the statements below to answer the infozatation requested in this section. Sec. 9.03 gives the critical infomtation requred for deteanirtirtg lot siu and layout. It is important that a lot can ~- accommodate s sewage fatality after natural features and land improvements aze considered. Don't forget drainage area's and flood hazazd areas. Sec. 9.04 is a public notice requirement Read carefullr• 1. An organized disposal system is not feasible for this subdivision due to: economics 2. -List the type and maximum sin of the proposed construction fat each lot Example: residential, 3 bedroom, 1800 sq. tt average. For institutional provide immbez and type of fnstures. residential. 3-bedroom, 2500 sg• ft. average The httotvratton provided fs complete to the best M my ltnowledge as ngnired In Chapter 9. Stgrtattae Applicant FOR OFFICE USE Approved -Approved with CondiCons _Dissapproved Conunent. !0/9d appsub Director THIS FORM REPLACES PREVIOUS FORM 3510-6 (8-92) Form Approved. owaN,.:aoaas See Reverse for Instructions "0°r°°"'u4..es'.ss : ~ .~ United States Environmental Protection Agency NP[>ES ® ®~~ Washington, DC 20460 FOF:M Notice of Intent (NOI) for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity Under a NPDES Perrnft _ Subr issbn of gds Nolka of Went'eondRdea rotla that the psAy IdenUfwd b Section II of tide loon Intends b bs aulhorixad by a NPDES permit Issued for storm waist dhelurgss assodabd vMh hdusfrlal actlvgy N the Slab HentifeW kt S d ti III f gd k tl , ec on o eeoa s nn. ~ a parmMee oldlgates such dkcharger to comp y with gre bans and eordRions of tlu pem~g. ALL NECESSARY INFORMATION MUST BE PROVIDED ON7HIS FORM. L Perng Ssbdbn; You must indicate the NPDE8 Storm Water gonaral permit ar whkh you ors applying for eovetage. Check one of these. Baseline Baseline Mugi-Sector Industrial ~ ConsWetion G ( roupPertrdt) II. Fadlity Operator Information Norte: IAtaril'tOrt~i rU,LNrIrTr3{ryr rPu2.r~rPcEteAl/rE~Si rL.cL;_, r iPtwna:ISr3ol3r(er'II3r r)~SI Status of Addiess:IPrd r'i~nrXi r-r„9rq~ r r r r ~ r r r r r r r r r~ r r r ~ r ~ I OwneriOperator., CUy. ~rFrPt~rVclrL~LrFr r r r r ~' i r r c i c c IState:~ ZIP Code:I'rRdr2r9r'cOr .9 .2 III. Fa :ility/SUe Location Information ... Namr: IP_rVrAr2rE,.SwSr rSr9iEr/d.1cCSc cE,SrT~drfcE,c , ~ ~ ~ , ~ I Is theracURybcatedon~ di I L n an ands? (Y or N) Addaess:I r r r i r r r r i r r~ r i,,,,, I CAy: I" r r i c i c c r r r r r r r r„ c c c„ I State: fLt~ ZIP Code:( r r r r c'c i c c i Latgcde: L3 ~IDr4i3.31 Longitude:(~cq,~ rG,17cdQuanerL~Section:W Townships ~ r ~ i Range:~~ IV SIIf~ Activity InfOmwtion MS4 ~peratorNama: I ~ c ~ c , , , , , , ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I .ceiring WaterBody. ~ cur iacA~ Li rn'pc ~ riZ I ~ Vi F1R~ ~ ~ , , ~ c ~ ~ I if you are filing as a w-permittee, MuU~Sedor Permg Aoolirants Onlv: enter ;tornwatergeneral permit number. I r c i i c ~ ~ i l Based on the Instructions provided in Addendum H of the SIC or Designated Multi-Sector permit, are species idengfied in Addendum H Activi y Code: Primary: ~ n ~ ~5~ 2nd; (7 + S~ 2 ~ 1 I in proximity to the storm water discharges to be covered under this permit, or the areas of BMP consWction to ) control those storm water discharges? (Y or N) Is the lacility required to submU mon8oring data? (t, 2, 3, or 4) V l i ~i l construct on (land disturbing edivgies) be conduded~ If You Have Another Existing NPDES for storm water controlsl(Y or N) Perm t, Enter Pemut Number. I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I Is applicant subject to and In compliance with a written historic preservation agreement? CY or N) V. Addi Ionai Information Required for ConsWdion Activ fUes Only . _ Project Start Date: Completbn Data: Is the Stonn Water PoUutan Preventbn Plan r- Estimated Area to be kl compliance with State andlor Lowl (~ / ~4~ a ~I / S'1 9 9I rb i i ( RI ~ r r r ed ( r Acresg Distu c , c r c sediment and erosion plans? (Y or N) VI. Cer.ification: The certification statement in Box 1 applies to all applicants. The certification statement in Box 2 applies only to facilities apptyfng for the Multi-Sector storm water general permit BOX 1 ALL APPLICANTS BOX 2 MULTISECTOR STORM WATER GENERAL PERMRAPPUCANTS ONLY: 1 cent' under penally of law that this document I certify under penalty o(law that 1 have read and understand Part I.B. eligibilfty requirements and aN sgachmerds were prepared under my for coverage under the MuUi-Sector storm water general permit, Ineiuding those requirements directb~ or supervision in accordance with a relating to the protection of species identified InAddandum H. system daslgnad to assure that qualified personnel propps~ty gather and evaluate the mlormation submUted ' Based on my Inquiry To the best of my knowledge, the discharges covered under this permit, and construction of BMPs to control storm water run-off, are not Ukely to and will not likely adversely atted any . of the Berson or persons who manage the spelles klent~ed in Addendum H of the MuIUSedor storm water general permit or are otherwise eligible for coverage due to previous authorization under the Endangered Species Act system, or Nose persons dreetly responsible for gath•.ring the Information, the Information To the best of my knowledge, I further certify that such discharges, and construction of BMPs submitted Is, to the best of my knowledge and to control storm water runcif, do not have an etted on pproperties listed or eligible for listing ti th l R i f Hi A N ' ~f, true, accurate, and complete. ) am a ona e ster o ct, or are on eg storic Places underthe National Historic Presarva on < e t rat there are significant penaRies for otherwise eligible for coverage due to a previous agreement under the National Historic Preservation ct submitt ng false Information, including the possbl'r y of fine and impdson-nent for knowing I understand that wnGnued coverage under the MuUi-Sector general permU is contingent upc violalior s. maintaining eligibility as provided for in Part 1.8. PrintNa~me: ( I}f 9~BI ' Date: Oc7I / c ~ r ~ ~~ r^ LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL ~raRO ~~ tlaoeooood . San Mtado, Taws 78233 PhawK (210) 055-0510 Fa (210) 0658610 TO: M t3ull08rs 448 Sidney Bailer South, Ste. 107 Kertville, TX 78028 ATTENTION: Mr. Gary Morgan Project: Twins Spr(np Ranch Date: July 15, 1998 Our Project No.: 1002- 3753 Your Project No This tranrniaal YrcNWas Confhuttlon Matarlal~ Tat t2apoAa talatad to Uw above ngrancad wmWdlon proJa~t itra nporta an trananatbd tar your tnromadlon and ua. TM roBowY~a rapoAs an aeacMd. Wte a rNm6ar Sample No: s 4 3 5 AEGEIVED ,~ 18'~ Laboratory Test Results Distribution: M Builders, Mr. Gary Morgan (1) Project File (1) •cca Fupro South, Inc. Submitted by: ~/le.~~L_~ G. (~- David A. Belcher, P.E. .1 LABORATORY TEST REPORT ~Rlo FuGROSOUTN,wc. ttoo9oroooa ATTERBERG LIMITS s"nArr,nw,Tm.rexu FH: tztq ess.9s,e FAX: (:t10) ~..' 9519 Job No.: 1002-3753 ProJed: Twin Springs Ranch (Test Date: 7/10/98 Location: Ingram, Texas Client: M-Builders Contredor. WA Visuat Classification: Tan lean Clav Sample Source: Onsite Material, Sampled 6/23198 Sample Identification: Sample No. 4, Lab Ref. No. 7742 Test Method: ASTM D-4318, Method A r- Wet Wt. + Tara (gm) 28.64 33.78 29.59 Dry WL + Tare (gm) 25.36 29.71 25.66 Tare Wt. (gm) 17.13 20.06 18.61 Wt. of Dry Sample 8.23 9.65 9.05 WL of Water 3.28 4.07 3.93 % Moisture (W,J 39.9 42.2 43.4 No. of Blows (M 35 26 _ _ 17 42 41 Liquid Limk Value at 25 Blows ~ x as `rc ci ~ to 3 to is 20 25 3D 35 40 4s 50 Number or Blow9, ~ ATTERBERG LIMB Sample Saec. LL 42 PL 20 PI 22 PI = LL - "Calculated Liquid Limit W„ ~ Moisture Content at N Blows N = Number of Blows PLASTIC LIMB DETER MINATION Can No. TOC M4 Wet Wt. + Tare (gm) 24.21 26.91 Dry Wt. + Tare (gm) 22.95 25.52 Tare Wt. (gm) 16.69 18.63 Wt. of Dry Sample 6.26 6.89 Wt. of Water 1.26 1.39 ~, Plastic Limit PL 20 20 REMARKS: Input By.: vp Check By: Cindy Brandenburg, AET Date: 7!15/98 THE ABOVE TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE (TENS TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, EXCEPT IN FULL, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF FUGRO SOUTH. .- LABORATORY TEST REPORT SRO FuortosouTH,lNC. „ooo ce9eod MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP ~ ~ °,~1e ex" FAX (21q ess•asta No.: 1002-3753 Projed: Twin Springs Ranch t Date: 6/23/98 Location: Ingram, Texas s-~ ~„ Classification: Tan 8 Brown Clayey Gravel e Source: Onstte Material, Sampled 6/23/98 Test Method: TEX 114-E e Identification: Sample No. 5, Lab Ref. No. 7741 Rammer Type: Mechanical Prep. Method: Wet Results: Maximum Dry Density 102.6 Ibs/cu-ft Optimum Moisture Content 12.7 % Input By: Atterberp Limits: Liquid Limit 52 Plastic Umtt 18 Plasticity Index 34 Specific Gravity: 2.8 (Estimated) to6.o X06.0 loa o . to2.o ~too.o 9e.o r 0 96.0 9a o . 9zo 90 0 :C Tat Valdes . • Zero Ak Vold floe 68.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 70.0 72.0 14.0 Water ~ont etMp71,0 220 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0 320 Check By: Cindy Brandenburg; AET. Date: 7/15/98 THE ABOVE TEST RESULTS APPLY TESTED THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, EXCEPT IN FULL, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF FUGRO SOUTH, INC. ~,,.'~ ~-^ /'-~ LABORATORY TEST REPORT Gina FUfiROaOllitl,INC. 11001 Ot0aod PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS P6f1 ~z~>eter RaWgetner Conaultante, Ino. P.O. Box 890287, San AMOnb• TX 7gZgg,gYB (210) 898.9090 • FAX (210) 8998428 PROJECT NO.: SACME98 REPORT DATE: 6-1.98 SAMPLE DATE: 5-22-98 TESTED BY: R•K (RYIn .- a 0 7! ne ~ 18.2 1035 `3!8 n 42.1 30-50 0 59.8 45-65 qoT~ ~ 22 ~ < 35 P' n r• rn t ~ 20 ._ ~~ NP -Not Provided Copies To: Above (1) DJAMES 82978 II ASSIGNMENT NO.: 4-123308 dgp 8.4 Rlclwrd J. 71rt~t,Jl, p,E, ~~•= Aur.:^ • ?rownsviue • `I Paso • Laredo • las Cruces. H McAllen • nlezico • San Antonio ' '! i LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL "' r" Fugro South, Ine. a 11009 Osgood San AManio, Taxaa 78233 Phone: (210) 855.9516 Fe>C (210) 855.9519 , TO: M Builders ~(~/~d 448 Sidney Bailer South, Ste. 107 Kerrville, TX 78028 `~ ~ 2 ~' ATTENTION: Mr. Gary Morgan ~~l~~.r~~F~~ Project: Twins Spring Ranch Date: June 30,1998 Our Protect No.:1002 - 3753 Your Protect No.: This trenamttfal hfcludea OomWglon IAatarlais Test Reports related W the above rofaronesd eonstrudion project. These reports are transmitted for your IMoroiaBOn and use. The following reports are attached. Dats or Number l Dascrlptlon Sample No.'s 1-3 Laboratory Test Results Remarks: r Distribution: M Builders, Mr. Gary Morgan (1) Project Flle (1) Fugro South, inc. Submitted by: ~~//!/~ ~ t' •aaas ~ David A. Belcher, P.E. t .-. LABORATORY TEST REPORT MOISTURE DENSITY RELATIONSHIP. Job No.: 1002-3753 Project: Twin Springs Ranch Test Date: 8!23/98 Location: • Ingram, Texas Client: M-Builders Contractor. WA Visual ClassiUcaUon: Dark Gray Fat Clay Sample Source: Subgrsde, Sampled 6/23/98 Test Method: TEX 114E Sample Identification: Sample No. 1, Lab Ref. No. 7". 43 Rammer Type: Mechanical Prep. Method: Wet SRO FUORO SOUTH, INC. 11000 o.8ooe Ban Aelo,YO, Teiaa 7823) PFi: (210)855.8518 FAX: (210) 855.8510 Results; Atterberg Limits: Maximum Dry Density 78.0 Ibs/cu-ft Liquid Umit 68 Optimum Moisture Content 31.0 % Plastic Limit 23 Plasticity Index 45 Specific Gravity: 2.8 (Estimated) ,~ /"` 82.0 6 0.0 7 6.0 78.0 ~ , 4.0 11 P ° 720 x r O 0 70.0 88.0 BB 0 7C Ted Vduae ......Zero Ak Vold Lkie 84.0 820 16.0 20.0 24.0 28.0 32.0 i.0 40 0 44.0 48.0 520 56.0 80.0 W.:er Content, % ey: cb Check 1 y: Cindy Brandenburg, AET. Date: 8125/98 THE ABOVE TEST THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, EXCEPT V FULL, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF FUGRO SOUTH, INC. .~ LABORATORY TEST REPORT SRO wcROSOUnt,INC. +taostoprwd ATTERBERG LIMITS - ~ ~„~" FAx:tsrgsssaa~e ~.,,. No.: 1002-3753 Project: Twin Springs Ranch Date: 6!23/98 Location: I,~ram, Texas nt: M-Builders ConVactor•. WA Visual Classification: Dark Gray Fat Clay Sample Source:. Subgrade, Sampled 6!23196 Sample Identification: Sample No. 1, l.ab Ref. No, 7743 _ _ _ Test Method: ASTM D-4318,,Metfiod A at Wt. + Tare (gm) 41.29 42.18 43.91 1 Wt. + Tare (gm) 32.13 32.78 34.04 re Wt. (gm) 18.75 18.97 19.48 . of Dry Sampla 13.38 13.81 14.58 :. of Water 9.16 9.40 9.87 Moisture (W,J 68.5 68.1 67.8 ~. of Blows fM 20 26 32 Limit tLL)• I 67 I 68 I 70 liquid Limk Value at 25 Blows ~o x sa J ~i ~ ~ s >: 3 ~ sB ~o is 20 2S 30 35 40 45 50 Numbsr or Blows, IM 'Net Wt. + Tare (gm) 25.62 26.30 i )ry Wt. + Tare (gm) 23.91 24.55 "are Wt. (gm) 16.51 16.65 ~ Vt. of Dry Sample 7.40 7.90 1 Vt_ of Water 1.71 1.75 ATTERBERG LIMIT Sample S°ec• LL 68 PL 23 PI 45 .:u-- 'Calculated Liquid Limit W„ =Moisture Content at N Blows N = Number of Blows 'lastic Limk PL 23 22 'EMARKS: iput ey.: cb Check By: Cindy Brandenburg, AET Date: 6/25/98 THE ABOVE TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, EXCEPT IN FULL, WrfHOUT THE APPROVAL OF FUORO SOUTH. ,- ' h . ..~~..~a~r~nvrcc~refonA~T ~YItaQO FUGROSOUTH,INC. r^ .. i-^ LAtiVI[A1VICi 1GJ1 flGl V~~~ IlpppOpWd PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS ~ Q~sssssu~ FAX Rid) N lob No.: 1002-3753 Protect: Twin Springs Ranch test Date; 8123!98 Location: Ingram Texas ~:lient: M-Builders ContractoC WA ' Asual Classification: Brown Clayey Gravel :ample Source: Subgrade Sampled 8!11(98 ::ample Identification: Sam le No. 2, Lab Ref. No. 7741 Doc. No.: 37535a2.1ds !!'are Weight (gm): 0.00 Test Method: Tex-110-E [ ~ry Soil Mass + Tare (gm): 43,883.00 Prep. Method: et Prep. [ ry Soil After Wash + Tare: 31,480.30 Dry Mass of Sop Before Test (gm): 43,863.00 LI.S. Standard Sieve No. Weight Retained Cumulative, m % Retained Cumulative % Finer Cumulative Project Specification Percent Finer Comments 3 in. 2-1/2 in. 1,140.00 2.6 97.4 - 2 in. 1-314 tn. 3,560.00 8.1 91.9 - 1-1l2 in. 1-1/4 in. - 1 in. 718 in. 9,275.00 21.1 78.9 - 314 in. - 5/8 in. 1/2 in. - 3/8 in. 17,460.00 39.8 60.2 - 1/4 in. - No.4 24,730.00 56.4 43.8 - No. 8 - No. 10 - No.16 No. 20 No. 30 No. 40 31,480.30 71.8 28.2 - No. 50 - No. 80 - No. 100 No. 140 No. 200 REt LARKS: 1..,..... o,. • ,-ti checked Bv: Cindv BrandentWro. AET Date: 6/29!98 THE ABOVE TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, EXCEPT IN FULL, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF FUGRO SOUTH, INC. on~~~~ .~~C. c~~~ 100 3 ~ 1dt2 ~~~ 70 a v 66 3 p I m 50 w 40 ' u 6 30 _.----'_ GRAIN SIZE CURVE ue,srrr~+°30 ~e 8 10 18 ~ .~ p.1 1 Orate Sirs In M~~e-,. ~- 8t23~a pate. ~-'' 1p0Z.3753 Job No.: S Ptcl~ TvM+ Gtgvel µstetl~ BrowO ~ µ~pd; Tex 110-E \, 0.001 1 / / LABORATORY TEST REPORT liRID woROSOUnt,u~c. „009 a.Qooa .-, ATTERBERG LIMITS a`^A/ODi+••T~~ PK:t219t9easam ' FAX; (410193S9S19 Job No.: 1002-3753 Project: TvAn Springs Ranch Test Date: 6123!98 Locatlon: Ingram, Texas Client: M-Buliders Contractor. NIA Classification: Brown Clayey Gravel 9 Source: Subgrade, Sampled 8/23/98 e Identification: Sample No. 2. Lab Ref. No. 7741 Test Methods ncTU1 rua~a uea,...~ e at Wt. + Tare (gm) 36.04 36.28 37.83 y WL + Tare (gm) 30.19 30.37 31.21 re Wt. (gm} 18.91 19.22 19.13 t. of Dry Sample 11.28 11.15 12.08 L of Water 5.85 5.89 6.62 Moisture (W,J 51.9 52.8 54.8 i. of Blows (M 3d 7R ~n 54 ,~'~ 53 ~ Liquid Limit Value at 25 Blows ss x ~~ U~ ~ ~ 51 so ~ 10 ~s zo zs so 35 ao as so Number of 8bws, (N) Nat Wt. + Tare (gm) 27.07 28.44 ~ry Wt. + Tare (gm) 25.38 26.90 are Wt. (gm) 16.78 18.78 Nt. of Dry Sample 8.58 8.12 Nt. of Water 1.71 1.54 'IasBc Limit (PL) ~ 20 I 19 Iput By.: cb Check ey: ATTERBERG LIMIT Sample Soec. LL 54 PL 19 PI 35 =LL-PL •Caiculated Liquid Limk W„ =Moisture Content at N Blows N = Number of Blows Date; THE ABOVE TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT HE REPRODUCED, EXCEPT IN FULL, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF fUGRO SOUTH. LABORATORY TEST REPORT t~RO PuoROSOUTH,wc. I r'- „oooo.oooa s.n AMaYo, T.w T6Y.D PARTICLE-SIZE ANALYSIS OF SOILS ~R~~,~18 FAX R1N e35~B57Y lob No.: 1002-3753 Projed: Twin Springs Ranch 'est Date: 6/23/98 Location: Ingram, Texas :lient: M-Builders Contrsdor. WA /'isual Classification: Brown Clayey Gravel iample Source: Subgrade ,Sampled 6/11/98 sample Identification: Sample No. 3, Lab Ref. No. 7742 Doc. No.: 3753sa3.xls fare Weight (gm): 0.00 Test Method: Tex 110-E ~ry Soil Mass + Tare (gm): 25,895.00 Prep. Method: Wet Prep. )ry Soil After Wash + Tare: 19,042.52 Dry Mass of Soil Before Test (gm): 25,695.00 U.S. Standard Sieve No. Weight Retained Cumulative, m % Retained Cumulative % Finer Cumulative Projed Spedfication Percent Finer Comments 3 in. - 2-1/2 in. - 2 in. - 1-314 in. 105.00 0.4 99.6 - 1-1/2 in. - 1-114 in. - 1 in. - 7/8 in. 1,410.00 5.4 94.6 - 3/4 in. - 5/8 in. - 1/2 in. - 3/8 in. 4,160.00 16.1 83.9 - 1/4 in. - No.4 9,010.00 34.8 65.2 - No. 8 - No. 10 - No. 16 - No. 20 - No.30 ~ - No.40 19,047.52 73.6 26.4 - No. 50 - No. 80 - No. 100 - No. 140 - No. 200 - REMARKS: Input By.: cb Checked By: Cindy Brandenburg, AET Date: 6/29/98 THE ABOVE TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE REMS TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, EXCEPT IN FULL, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF FUGRO SOUTH, INC. SOUTH, iNC. ~UGRO 100 usa~N+o~D ya°jB4 { 3 2 tan . y..,--~rsT'rl''" 70 so 3 A ~ 50 u. ~ 40' 0 a 30 G ~N SiZE CURVE ~yppe~~ Tp~1pt0 1~W 200 d 10 u/8 ~ .~tr^'i"-'1 111 ~ 1 Grsta SlzB to y100M°-.-- ~: ~~ ~: 1602-3753 s R>~ Prof Twin S M~fat: 6r°vn' Cter Gra`~°t T~•110•R - ~ ~ 0.001 r- s^ j - ~~ !9 LABORATORY TEST REPORT raRO FuoROSOUnr,wc. „oosogooa BartA~ao,Tew TBZU ATTERBERG LIMITS vrt;t2tgan.os,e FAx tx,q arise+a Job No.: 1002-3753 Pro)ect: Twin Springs Ranch {Test Date: 6123/98 Location: Ingram, Texas Client: M-Builders I Contractor. WA Visual Classification: Brown Clayey Gravel Sample Source: Subgrade, Sampled 6(23!98 Sample Identification: Sam le No. 3, Lab Ref. No. 7742 Test Method: ASTM D-4318, Method A MULTIPOINT UQUID UMIT DETERMINAT ION Can No. 82 F4 LB Wet Wt. + Tare (gm) 32.17 34.74 32.91 Dry Wt. + Tare (gm) 27.66 30.12 28.36 Tare Wt. (gm) 17.12 19.04 17.18 Wt. of Dry Sample 10.54 11.08 11.18 Wt. of Water 4.51 4.62 4.55 % Moisture (W,J 42.8 41.7 40.7 No. of Blows 21 26 33 Calculated Li uid Limit L' 42 42 42 Liquid Limit Value at 25 Blows ~ x~ s e ~ 42 x a+ 3 w 39 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Number of Blows, ~ ATTERBERG UMIT Sample Spec. LL 42 PL 20 PI 22 PI = LL - PL 'Calculated Uquid Umit LL = W; (NI25rA1 Where: W„ =Moisture Content at N Blows N =Number of Blows PLASTIC UMIT DETER MINATION Can No. DD DJ Wet Wt. + Tare (gm) 27.46 27.85 Dry Wt. + Tare (gm) 25.56 25.98 Tare Wt. (gm) 16.02 16.65 Wt. of Dry Sample 9.54 9.33 Wt. of Water 1.90 1.87 Plastic Limit PL 20 20 REMARKS: Input By.: cb Check By: Cindy Brandenburg, AET Date: 6/29/98 THE ABOVE TEST RESULTS APPLY ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED. THIS REPORT SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED, EXCEPT IN FULL, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF FUGRO SOUTH.