20170059 Ver 1_Riparian Buffer Authorization_20170111

Environmental Consultants,
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104, Raleigh, NC 27615 • Phone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]
sandec.com
To: NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
Attn: Karen Higgins
Archdale Building — 9th Floor
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
From: Deborah E. Shirley
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
Re: Cambridge Village
Raleigh, Wake County, NC
January 11, 2017
S&EC Project # 4495.W10
201 70050
On behalf of the applicant, please find attached a complete application and supplemental information
requesting a No Practical Alternatives review for Neuse Buffer impacts from the N. C. Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR). Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions or require
additional information.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Name
Cambridge Village
Project Type
Senior Living Development
Owner / Applicant
Brier Creek Independent Living, LLC
County
Wake
Nearest Town
Raleigh
Waterbody Name
UT to Little Brier Creek
Basin
Neuse
Index Number
27-33-4-1
Class
C, NSW
IMPACT SUMMARY
Stream Impact (acres): 0
Wetland Impact (acres): 0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 0
Total Riparian Buffer Impact (square feet): Zone 1: 4,333 ;Zone 2: 2,943
Attachments:
Riparian Buffer Authorization Form
Agent Authorization Form
USGS Topographic Map
NRCS Soil Survey Map
Recorded Map -Book 2014, page 155
Buffer Determination letter-NBRRO 99-196
Geotechnical Report -Cambridge Village
Overall Site Plan
Grading Plan -West & East
Existing Conditions -West & East
Impact Exhibit
Crossing Profile

Low
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Resources Division of Water Resources
15A NCAC 02B .0233 (8)(b), .0243 (8)(b), .0250 (11)(b), .0259 (8)(b), .0267 (11)(c), .0607 (e)(2) - Buffer Authorization
FORM: BA 10-2013
Riparian Buffer Authorization Form
A.
Applicant Information
1.
Project Information
la.
Name of project:
Cambridge Village
1b.
County:
Wake
1 c.
Nearest municipality:
Raleigh
1d.
Subdivision name:
N/A
1 e.
Is the project located in any of North Carolina's
twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1f below.
❑ Yes
® No
1f.
Is the project located within a NC Division of Coastal
Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ Yes
® No
2.
Owner Information
2a.
Name on Recorded Deed:
Brier Creek Independent Living, LLC
2b.
Deed Book and Page No.
Deed Bk: 16249; Deed Pg: 785
2c. Map Book and Page No.
(include a copy of the recorded
ma that indicates when the lotu
was created):
Book 214; Page 155
FV���
2d.
Responsible Party
(for Corporations):
Kendall Oliver
JAN I 1
2e.
Street address:
6736 Falls of Neuse, Suite 220
RE URC S
2f.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27615
401 & BUFFE
2g.
Telephone no.:
919-818-1408
2h.
Fax no.:
N/A
2i.
Email address:
[e-mail]
3.
Applicant Information (if different
from owner)
3a.
Applicant is:
❑ Agent ® Other, specify: Owner
3b.
Name:
3c.
Business name
(if applicable):
3d.
Street address:
3e.
City, state, zip:
3f.
Telephone no.:
3g.
Fax no.:
3h.
Email address:
4.
Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
4a.
Name:
Deborah E. Shirley
4b.
Business name
(if applicable):
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
4c.
Street address:
8412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104
4d.
City, state, zip:
Raleigh, NC 27615
4e.
Telephone no.:
919-846-5900
4f.
Fax no.:
919-846-9467
4g.
Email address:
[e-mail]
FORM: BA 10-2013 Page 1 of 6

B.
Project Information and Prior Project History
1.
Property Identification
1a.
Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
0768-59-3520 & 0768-49-7410
1b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees):
Latitude: 35.9187
Longitude: -78.7805
12.56 acres
2.
Surface Waters
2a.
Name of nearest body of water to proposed project:
UT to Little Brier Creek
2b.
Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water:
C; NSW 27-33-4-1
2c.
River basin:
Neuse Basin
3.
Project Description
3a.
Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application: The existing conditions consist of forested land with a perennial stream bisecting the properties, and
an intermittent stream on the southern boundary of the eastern property. The general land use in the vicinity
includes mixed commercial and residential development.
3b.
Attach an 8 Y x 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the USGS topographic map indicating the location of
the site
3c.
Attach an 8 Y x 11 excerpt from the most recent version of the published County NRCS Soil Survey Map
depicting the project site
3d.
List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
1,482 linear feet
3e.
Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
The purpose of the project is to construct a Senior Living development.
3f.
Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The overall project consists of the construction of a senior living development to include roads, parking, utilities,
stormwater BMP's and residential structures. Specifically, this project will require riparian buffer impacts for a
road crossing and bypass channels. Equipment such as bull dozers, bucket loaders, excavators and other typical
equipment used for land disturbance, construction.
4.
Jurisdictional Determinations
4a.
Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property/
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
® Yes ❑ No ❑ Unknown
Comments:
4b.
If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas?
Name (if known): Steven Ball completed updated wetland
delineation in December 2016
Agency/ Consultant Company: Soil &
Environmental Consultants, PA
Other:
4c.
If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
NCDWR: Existing Buffer Determination letter for Ruby Jones Tract (NBRRO 99-196);
5.
Project History
5a.
Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
❑ Yes ® No ❑ Unknown.
5b.
If yes, explain and detail according to "help file" instructions.
6.
Future Project Plans
6a.
Is this a phased project?
❑ Yes ® No
6b.
If yes, explain.
FORM: BA 10-2013 Page 2 of 6

C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Buffer Impacts
1a. Project is in which protected basin?
® Neuse
❑ Tar -Pamlico ❑ Catawba
❑ Randleman
❑ Jordan
❑ Goose Creek
1b. Individually list all buffer impacts below. If any impacts require mitigation, then you MIUST fill out Section D of this
form.
Buffer impact
number —
Permanent P
( )
Reason for impact
P
Type of impact
(exempt, allowable,
Stream name
Buffer mitigation
�
Zone 1
impact
Zone 2
impact
or Temporary
allowable w/ mitigation)
required.
s ft
(q )
s ft
(q )
Open Bottom
UT to Little
B1(1A) ®P ❑ T
Culvert -Road
Allowable
Brier Creek
❑ Yes ® No
4,048
2,827
Crossing
B2(1 B) ®P❑ T
Bypass Channels
Allowable
UT to Little
❑ Yes ® No
285
116
Brier Creek
B3 ❑ P❑ T
UT to Little
❑ Yes [:]No
Brier Creek
B4 ❑ P❑ T
UT to Little
❑ Yes ❑ No
Brier Creek
B5 ❑ P❑ T
I
❑ Yes [:]No
Total buffer impacts
4,333
2,943
1c. Comments:
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
1a. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
Retaining walls have been utilized throughout the site plan to avoid & minimize riparian buffer impacts. Stream
impacts have been avoided by utilizing an Arch Span Culvert. The road at the crossing has been designed at a
minimum width (i.e. 25') and a 5' wide sidewalk, to minimize total riparian buffer impacts.
1 b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
Erosion & Sediment Control measures per the plan approved by the City of Raleigh will be utilized to avoid
sediment impacts to the stream and wetland. The site plan does not include impacts to the stream; therefore all
E&S measures will be within uplands.
FORM: BA 10-2013 Page 3 of 6

C. Impact Justification and Mitigation, continued
2. Buffer Mitigation
2a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires buffer
mitigation?
El es ® No
2b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation and
calculate the amount of mitigation required in the table below.
Zone Reason for impact Total impact Multiplier Required mitigation
(square feet (square feet
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
Total buffer mitigation required:
2c. If buffer mitigation is required, is payment to a
mitigation bank or NC EEP proposed?
❑ Yes ❑ No
2d. If yes, attach the acceptance letter from the mitigation bank or NC EEP.
2e. If no, then discuss what type of mitigation is proposed.
2f. Comments:
FORM: SSGP3080 8-13 Page 4 of 6

E. Diffuse Flow Plan
All buffer impacts and high ground impacts require diffuse flow or other form of7Form.
iffuse flow
stormwater treatment. Include a plan that fully documents how diffuse flow will be
BMPIf
maintained. If a Level Spreader is proposed, attach a Level Spreader Supplementher
1a.
due to site constraints, a BMP other than a level spreader is proposed, please p
❑ Yes ® No
plan for stormwater treatment as outlined in Chapter 8 of the NC Stormwater BMP
public (federal/state) land?
Manual and attach a BMP Supplement Form.
1 b.
The west side will provide sand filters to reduce nitrogen, and underground detention to
❑ Yes ❑ No
detain the 2 & 10 -yr storms to pre -development levels, per the City of Raleigh
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State (North
requirements. The detention system will be then piped directly to the existing storm
system within ACC Blvd. The east side does not require nitrogen treatment (onsite),
Underground detention will be utilized to detain the 2 & 10 -yr storms to pre -development
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document been finalized by the State
levels, per the City of Raleigh requirements. Stormwater will then be piped to flow splitter
boxes and discharged through level spreaders adjacent to the riparian buffer. High flow
bypass channels are provided to convey bypass flows directly to the stream channel.
Violations
The Applicant requests that a conditional Riparian Buffer Authorization be granted,
2a.
allowing the Approved stormwater management plan (i.e. diffuse flow plan) to be
❑ Yes ® No
submitted to the NCDWR after the City of Raleigh Approves.
Rules (15A NCAC 02H .1300), DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards, or Riparian
F.
Supplementary Information
1.
Environmental Documentation
1a.
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
❑ Yes ® No
public (federal/state) land?
1 b.
If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
❑ Yes ❑ No
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State (North
Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1 c.
If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document been finalized by the State
❑ Yes ❑ No
Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.)
2.
Violations
2a.
Is the site in violation of DWR Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 02H .0500), Isolated Wetland
❑ Yes ® No
Rules (15A NCAC 02H .1300), DWR Surface Water or Wetland Standards, or Riparian
Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 02B .0200)?
2b.
Is this an after -the -fact permit application?
❑ Yes ® No
2c.
If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s):
' I
January 11,
Deborah E. Shirley 2017
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the a ant is provided.)
Send this completed form and accompanying documents to the following:
For government transportation projects sent For government transportation projects sent
by First Class Mail via the US Postal Service: by delivery service (UPS, FedEx, etc.):
NC DWR, Transportation Permitting Unit OR NC DWR, Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center 512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650 Raleigh, NC 27604
FORM: BA 10-2013 Page 5 of 6

For all other projects sent by First Class Mail For all other projects sent by delivery service
via the US Postal Service (UPS, FedEx, etc):
Karen Higgins OR Karen Higgins
NCDWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit NCDWR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center 512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27699 - 1650 Raleigh, NC 27604
FORM: SSGP3080 8-13 Page 6 of 6

Environmental Consultants,
8412 Falb of Neuse Road, Suite 104, Raleigh, NC 27615 • Phone: [phone] • Fu: [phone]
sandec.com
PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION / AGENT AUTHORIZATION
Project Name/Description: TW Alexander Place -Lots 8 & 112 S&EC Project # 4495.W10
Date:
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Attn:
Wilmington District
Field Office:
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein, do
authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Soil &
Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC) staff, as my agent, to enter upon the property herein described
for the purpose of conducting on-site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters of
the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This document also authorizes S&EC, as my agent, to act on my behalf
and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of a permit or certification and
any and all associated standard and special conditions. This notification supersedes any previous
correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
NOTICE: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for government
officials to enter the property when accompanied by S&EC staff. You should call S&EC to arrange a site
meeting prior to visiting the site.
PARCEL INFORMATION:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 0768-59-3520&0768-49-7410
Site Address: 7801 TW Alexander Drive & 7950 ACC Blvd.
City, County, State: Raleigh, NC (Leesville)
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION:
Name: Brier Creek Independent Livine. LLC
Mailing Address: 6736 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 220, Raleigh NC 27615
Telephone Number: 919-818-1408
Email: SbeattiegCVSliving.com
_Kendall Oliver
Property Owner (please print)
Property Owner Signature
12-27-16
Date
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate -
to the best of our know/edge,

tNA'
of
r
>: y
Project No.
3165.W 19 U5G5 Map 0 300 600 900 1,200
Pro
5Bject Mgr.: Brier Creek Parcels Feet
5B
Wake Co, NC
scale: • Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
M412 Fa14 Raid. Sni.• 104, R.IA61L IW 27615 • Phm. (9 19) R46-5900 • F": (919) 94&9467
USVS southeast
xand.:esom
2/19/15 Durham Quadranale

;�; • � � � ��' � �, a ��r y 'r ` . {. -1.
u
a
-�Ao - f CrIc
1/0 C
r q iz y
All
E
„
EI iKc• ar' -
•
Pr4lect No.
3165.W19 Sod Survey Map 0 300 600 900 1,200
Project Mgr.:
5e
Brier Creek Parcels Feet
Wake Co, NC
Scale: •
I"=300' Soil & Environmental Consultants PA
Wake Co Soil Survey R4I:F'al4ni\.vntRnal,tiuielW.Ralci6lr,{C27b13.16oa.(')19)RJG�90p•Fax:�siili)Ris9ie;
.anda.�vm
2/ 19/ 15 Sheet 18

LINE TABLE
UNE I LENGTH DIRECTION
LIQ 90.67' S173B'GI'E
LIM 79.09' M3577 -13-W
L142 38.85' 11555'O9'E
L143 37.39' N41'48'44W
1144 99.05' NOO'02'44'E
L145 30.99' NOS•30'18'E
L145 80.86' SSB71'57'W
L147177.5P S86'57'3YW
L148 {3.75' S41 72'49'W
L149 54.08' S451727'E
MIFG
THE US[ NLOUD ON HESE LOTS IS
.—.1 -1-- ADOPTED Br
77' a' RNEOH NG— V. x000 AND
REWSED JAMMY 23 2001.
UN 17' OFDEVIIOPYENT 15 PEWEEO FOR
NL LOTS NMB SUB "- ALL
fN9lON05 AM OR"' GTE,
TE --E-
_
W5T C01PLr -,OF DEIELORETIT
aRODAES AND " aRFNIA ON EEE N
INE PLANNNO O ARTYDAT
EACH LOT - BE —I M PMT 10
. RR 9 w RALEIGH .TY COOS W
A000MANCE WTH THE APPR.- PHAMO
FOR TW ALEXAMEN DRIVE AM ACC
BOTEVNID ICOM FRaATME W LOT 121
• 1. ARE NLOO.AIED TO EACH LOT M
s1aNW m YNWaxFTAT.
M!iFP TO THE APPRDwO CORGTWs a
YP-,-00 AND 112 -Ix FM DvaLOPWDAT
OF INESE LOTS
NEUM BUFFER STATEMENT
THEAREAS Ng1wA ON TNIB PUT [M3 --AS HE-P-
RIOAR NA II-PFA—L BE 1MNTANEO N PEPPETUIIY N TIED
INTUTAL 011 MTpATEO CONalpll M PERSON 011 ENTITY 9NNL
FEL, BIUOE, IXGVATE. a1 PEPF. wWW YOTIER LAM
aBNRBMO AOT MTES; NOR OUT. PEYOA:, OR NNM NAY
VEOETA RAPRWNETMIOTANY NRU OWAN-GRA NY
OR WAXEU HG ORRNOUB BURfAOE, NOR NLO W AMMAL GRALN6
00. WATEMMORMY OTHERAGRN.LLTURALUSE ON SUCN
PROIECTFDAREM WIIIgUT WRITTEN AUINORMATMM 61NE
DIV19pN OF WATER Guam IOWo) 01H COYMINACE WI1X TIE
P •APMN BUFFER ME0/ EOTEN RUES (iB1 NfJG 1B.OID OR .Ot W,.
TWO COVEEA4NT E TO RIM WITN TEE LAM.NOBNNL E 9NOTN3
OEI THE OW VER. AND NL PARIES O WANG INIOEiI R.
CURVE TABLE
mM-n'
W
111
V
NST
GGM.
oi4o
n
/
SBTIan-E cw,IwL
S80.B7' 'ten
SFMmMY TRE COETIIVATON APG \
N3DNArz out NNE Jr PDOYtIq YARD \
n,Ju�s�}aai ADWJ1
IC1Ffy ;yp 9gNp \1
11
LOT a 04LUE 10
T W ALEXANDER PLACE
7.80 AC
M -PDD
DELTA CHORD CHORD BEARING
0322513' 441.311' N57'W
028'15'11' 516.74' N]47S2{73'21'E
005'27'32' 142.49' S0415'3WW
000"30135' 17.08' S6577'4eW
01194'21' 510.0]' SIO'5B'30'E
000'42'02' 1111' SOD'45'S0'E
00557'GO' 174.57 5QT93'41'W
EE Ca13p1VAlXN AIIGNOiIE
IEYNIa sr PEMIEIER on
xr (aN ) I
—
m mr a RNExN I GO T
11' NIOTA ��Y1N(AT';
1' PA 120x-Ipx�11 ,-7
I Q i
1
1 l�
1 \ g -
'1 8LOT W
Z M SLOPE GEYOII 6M 2' POS 12B5-1267- U L147
1 M x013 POE 1]76-1x0) NY PRVArz
/ � MEAMIAa'T C10 o j
1 6 TIn
n� ` 9T PMVArz mla vmiss °iTT��, j ' 'x�p��W (L\V6 w xmi Pw 7ex-Tm ,s,' -i5
GSIIQIT
4ifi�'!. 1 3 Pm 19aB-1x7) y0\3. Na"2'34'E
Ott L�µ£FnL t G16
----------
----------
A >U PWYAE I I j�7%�
S'Nr PUG1C U11UIY rAEJnA / I Ii`// „ /
YE lu3 Pas JSx-ril � ' '' ev�EAa�BD�E NE�°I I I / j/
5fi EBW tv a 9MN 1 1 // +,$ A
11
xSPA 5�E � NgiF�MIAMIEY Ea ANACE u' R�MF�im rum a "/
"YA1w NAD 03
N -790.X0.00' V
E-IOOOOOO.W'
f -1u W% 194
xyyeuppROSpOf �1I.,yYEEgIp1� I
IB xN3 .—T6J SWTMY��SLO
�E 1 OpAYpBMxN3 Pf3 1186-1�
V°e""xppl wrT9Tm Mm '.Bd:N«�� / ,
O LOT 112 (PRASE 18)
��. T W ALEXANDERPLACE
8 3B6ACAC
LEGEND \.,
'.& TD -PDD
CDR - CITY OF RALEIGH
R/W - RIGHT-OF-WAY
MB - MM BOOK
PG- PAGE
PAWNY TUE ODNSIVAIIuI NFA
t32s' (aJt K�AE9) I
EIP - EXISTING IRON PIPE
PS- REN PIPE SET
M BOITmO
NRKE COUM TY. MC 185 NO 2 U, PG ,352
YflE4
/
.EDFOR REGISTRATION LRURR M RIDDICK
rr
L usEi�uT
REGISTER OF.,DEEDS
�—
Ny
N
PRESENTED S RECORDED ON
LAURA M. RIDDICK 02/05/2014 RT 14:41107
�e�'
�Pg�
REG���DEEGS
y
BY. ASST./OE— SOOK:DM20L4 PAGE:08155
/
TIME:
r g
SEE SHEET 4 OF 6 FOR TREE CONSERVATION ON LOT 13
x'
RAOD RMI OI"Wa
SEE SHEET 5 OF 6 FOR TREE CONSERVATION ON LOT 112
'
❑Ral11YAH®MG
0348
SEE SHEET 6 OF 6 FOR TREE CONSERVATION ON LOT 123
'APRgYlD M
PARCEL ID NUMBER
�
LOT 200 - 0768591772
I
ANOINT tRa Gaa1VAmN MFA 2L W41WT
1 axs (�p f� GGrt IrzAxuE I
MNMY T1U OONSf11VATW1 MEA III
/ 14E�xx f f0.1J AO�FB) I
iq1 SIIEYCIFDFT iJ0 !MN ��[ I 1
�a�i w1i TPa nine I I
ti FISC � SIOIU2�G41LtIT � 1\
n PB°P°u SIFET 9 aF°R i "a EASEnIT 7800��E9YBB[�NWL •EA�� – – V
ful YLIL1 NO OOIImS _ _ _ - - -t
SBB71'5YW
TW ALEXANDER DRIVE
120 PUBLIC R/W F�
DEDICATION
97,515 SF (2.24 AC)
YE PE 58871'33'En NBB'11'5TE
277.83'-__---__
Fob gA1�YA}rz pOB�A¢ EA>Dlp(!\ N� BEAID9IT
a IFlxt NID 9u0m0
lIQ oa1EAVAlFN AUA
-TONE x NEUS OIIfFR
N4 t AQILS)
eGN� T w TTL OXAN� PRLACE w PR.rz
6.20 AC
TD -PDD tC`i9Po0.W
I7' TREE CRlGT1'AIXM APG
E CGWIIMOE S!_PFIOIEIFII YNm _ �. m � i .
ID B0.MM
PIWIARY TIES ou®IVAT
x ER MFA
x91E MRF BWTu -\
I
--1
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
--J
I
7-'
(i 4)
/
501'48'29N
/ //
------- -�/
-----
SEE SHEET 1 OF 6 FOR SIGNATURES AND CERTIFICATIONS
SEE SHEET 3 OF 6 FOR TREE CONSERVATION ON LOT 8
r g
SEE SHEET 4 OF 6 FOR TREE CONSERVATION ON LOT 13
SEE SHEET 5 OF 6 FOR TREE CONSERVATION ON LOT 112
SEE SHEET 6 OF 6 FOR TREE CONSERVATION ON LOT 123
PARCEL ID NUMBER
LOT 200 - 0768591772
GRAPHIC SCALE BM 2013, PGS 752-753
ZONING -TD PDD
MP -1-00
RECORDED IN MAP BOOK 2014, PAGE S- WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY I'" T1' I s-13
/.S "°°"' 100 EL TRANSACTION #3882424
3.
JOHN A. EDWARDd COMPANY "C'LL mm. W ALEXANDER PLACE AMEN MFT S:—
>_� C)a Rov Engwn 1' -too' .11/25/13 LOT 8 (PH 7), LOT 13 (PH 12), LOT 112 (PH 13), 8 LOT 123 (PH 18) AND
NO Lbwwo F4)989nG. IE . rAx DRMT m TW ALEXANDER DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY
2
_ 939 Waft Ave. i1EMlpl� NC 77906 kc OMER SLF RUBY JONES, LLC or
H Plan (6w) 6294426 RALEIGHAKE 6
�' ' a = FAX [phone]H mm °E°E0 �'` IGHT-0F-WAY DEDICATION, SLOPE EASEMENT, PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT,
DATE REVISION BY Ey1W kfte*e mn JAE, A. TREE CONSERVATION 8 SUBDIVISION PLAT

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
RALEIGH REGIONAL OFFICE
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
August 20, 1999
Mr. Kevin Martin
Soil & Environmental Consultants, Inc.
244 West Millbrook Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Subject: Neuse River Basin
Riparian Buffer Rules
NBRRO 99196
Ruby Jones Tract
Hwy 70 / ACC Blvd
Wake County
Dear Mr. Martin:
D� DOM
AUG
it A 1/
On June 25, and July 28 1999, I conducted site visits of the features involved in
the above referenced project. It was determined as a result of the site visit that the water
bodys / channels present on the property were intermittent streams and therefore subject
to the Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy; Protection
and Maintenance of Existing Riparian Areas, Administrative Code T15A:02B.0233
(NCAC 0233). The enclosed site rnap contains the streams and the buffers that are
protected under the Neuse Diver Basin Plan. The streams are unnamed tributarys of
Sycamore Creek.
This office has assigned the reference number of N 3RRO 99 199 to this project.
Thank you for your attention to this matter and if this Office can be of any assistance or
if you have any additional questions concerning this letter, please do not hesitate to
contact me at 571-4700 ext. 245.
S' rely
es r
Environmental Specialist
cc: RRO Files / John Dorney
:\neusbuf.let\nbr99196.let
3800 BARRETT DRIVE, SUITE 101, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27808
PHONE [phone] FAX O 10-571-471 B
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/ AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER - 50% RECYCLED/1096 POET -CONSUMER PAPER

PIP
IP
",, � H "�[7)�� •+ .lam��]] .((iie�•� `.� ,` � '�
IL
rr9ipofi dam' •�
' ,r.•�", act, •'!'�;► • -y . ., r ' :. •'� r ,
/,�,e ►► •�f•y!i '�♦ ,S�l Imo•. 4 r" 5 �a �1. I'•�aY•t a ~*� ~ , �,R1'�`f '�1''.
�� R` lht"''f�� �� • ai y;k r .'
�• � r •+ .;� . ' -Y "i� � 1+.'. i til' fin' ti�,� , ;•. ':. iC�:..
•1 ; �.r'ti '� t i ,'�: Aj ° ; [ ?,,�, J� �s•'A
ly
♦�F� ,•i •,iI •, ° �•�/^.f` ,} '� iNiri.ti: 71•I
,- a •' �, ./J %'r:• •� R'�4•'j►ai�,i." � � r 1'• i ;' �,�.r/�
PIP
�M • y �•/:.rte , ,;.,r%, y+ •` ;r,.y•. �n 1,<. `•�•ri �,. - u'i �t• #PIP r • (r`�4;1 i
JI
wcl, PIP
INA"�!�y •,�' � i �'.` r �y , r�� ��' �'�•'1� , • A � _ � r'+� `J *r't :'..1 ,�� ' � " '!C' f �.:;n .
�in!.e/ rV. 7 • �ti� i �y vr.a �Y ,I';� - �': I f !�:Lr,'� ► *"r•
1. �r5 Jy, + b�''%!�t . ,� t1M r? • ,.. ' j L<rr'• a sqK' • .
�w �.�rMs•, J ; •�^ O_ J.�r«, ,:allt•fr' � r;�. 'r, �•��:a
1 rr•',,,...�;va.�.; ter.. _ ���11i�r �:�'1'L ��- �.A6N •�� • ��r•;'?�1:r:
��:✓ .' P ►y arSti.v 1 \ �A. n:.9 b ��
t+j� •�a
•C`.r�A Y7 �� •�.is..f_ 7;17 �: .�' `.':ilJ ^ t 1 `.A� 'i f4."yt�Jla �t•,
' �` " r j � «7 �ii• �}'g G !„�, . , �" �'i.C!'r_►'r :v l �, a i c '�'v _ fit"
ok
. •i,ri-is •� \y �•� •���•' �~J 'fie?... ,��•,` t"%/a t V.
,,y�ay- � �: 4•' .•� • � r fix.in.•'a�' y � � !' } �'r .• •: �!�', �, y ♦..
,sem �" �� .+i��!. %�t!`},.:�.:,�'��; •:. f -"`R` i. ' 1 •�. , ��w
l� T,•'° %r�r'`• .k: C�•b '�t`�,\� .�.'Y �j�'''�• r�.1 �i; .r •�'t"►:•,'�� ',-'�,' + '�i,lr..
, Mvio
,'• �,•i••L, `j4" 1 . � '���•' "`'-."�ja,.•�" ",�%'+•• "'�••'lL� � r ` �% -'• ,r ^' � ,ice•• y '• ,�,1°' .� v' ��
•'t4 FJ'
�••.� P~ yhh,r :. ,77�.�M.(i.: 4'�'iiyX.!..;1 y� �.� �•� • �• • Y • �p L .e a syr t �� 1
Saw
���iY.*•:75F:r%�>r. '`' T:ld :a •'�•rl: Y� `}. �+'t?.,,� Vit! �ip?l.ij1$_
: 7 _c r`. , :�t�:'�// ,� �• 'i.�` ��: < a. _ a:fili'l�di.4.:.� Lir.SY.T'S.:._

1 logies, Inc.
Geotechnical and Construction Materials Testing Services
March 31, 2015
Mr. Mark Wilson
CAMBRIDGE VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
6736 Falls of Neuse Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
Re: Report of Subsurface Investigation
Cambridge Village
Raleigh, North Carolina
GeoTechnologies Project No. 1 -15 -0114 -EA
Dear Mr. Wilson:
GeoTechnologies, Inc. has completed the authorized subsurface investigation to evaluate subsurface
conditions and provide geotechnical engineering recommendations for the planned construction of a new
residential community to be located on a 12.56 acre vacant tract of land northwest of the intersection of Brier
Creek Parkway and ACC Boulevard in Raleigh, North Carolina. Boring elevations were obtained from the
Wake County GIS site and for this reason should be considered approximate. The borings were located in the
field with a hand-held GPS device utilizing coordinates shown in Table 1. The test borings were extended to
depths ranging from 7.5 to 27.5 feet below existing grade using a BK -51 drill rig turning large diameter hollow
stem augers and all borings were sampled at select intervals using standard penetration test (SPT) procedures as
outlined in ASTM D-1586 using a conventional drop hammer. This report presents the findings of the
investigation and our recommendations for site grading, pavements, and foundation support for the new
construction.
SITE AND PROJECT INFORMATION
It is our understanding that a 12.56 acre undeveloped tract of land located northwest of the intersection
of Brier Creek parkway and ACC Boulevard in Raleigh, North Carolina is under consideration for development
as a new residential community. The site is primarily wooded and undeveloped except for a short section of
sanitary sewer line which runs through a corner of the property. The high points on the site are located at the
northeast portion of the western tract near T.W. Alexander and Brier Creek Parkway (max EL approximately
398 ft.) and at the northwest corner of the eastern tract near T.W. Alexander and ACC Blvd (max EL
approximately 393 ft.). The site generally slopes towards a creek which bisects the parcel and separates it from
a parcel to the south as shown on Figure 1.
The proposed project will include multistory living units in the vicinity of the `B" series borings, multi-
story parking decks in the vicinity of the "D" series borings, and stormwater ponds in the vicinity of the "P"
series borings. The site has significant topographic relief and it is expected that significant cuts and fills will be
required along with retaining walls to grade the site. We have not been provided with a site grading plan or with
structural loads as of the writing of this report.
3200 Wellington Ct., Ste. 108 • Raleigh, NC 27615 • Phone [phone] • Fax [phone] • www.geotechpa.com • License No. C-0894

Cambridge Village Development, LLC
Re: Cambridge Village
March 31, 2015
Page: 2
Weather conditions were very wet at the time of the subsurface investigation and an all -terrain
CME -550 was initially used to try to drill the borings on the west side of the property. Although the rig did drill
a few borings, it became stuck in the soft and wet near surface soils and had to be pulled out twice before it was
pulled off the site for two weeks to allow some drying. A different rig completed the work. Although the second
rig did not get struck, it was observed that surface conditions were softer on the west side of the site than on the
east.
AREA GEOLOGY AND SOIL SURVEY
The site is located east of the Jonesboro Fault within the Deep River Triassic Basin which consists of
nearly horizontal, continent derived sandstones, siltstones, and mudstones. These materials were deposited from
about 180 to 230 million years ago in a continental half graben basin which trends generally northeast to
southwest through the central portion of North Carolina. Subsequent to deposition, these sediments were
intruded by numerous dikes of diabase igneous rock, which worked its way up through fractures in the
consolidated sediments. Since Triassic time, the area has been eroded into a maturely dissected region with
small streams and rounded low hills. The area is often characterized by a thin veneer of highly plastic surface
soils and shallow partially weathered rock which becomes harder with increasing depth.
Based upon our review of the Wake County Soil Survey information, the near -surface soils at the site
consist of Creedmoor and Chewacla soils. The Creedmoor soils exist across the majority of the site and the
Chewacla soils generally correspond with the creeks along the western and southern boundaries of the site. The
Creedmoor soils generally exhibit permeability on the range of 6 to less than 0.2 inches per hour, a pH between
5.1 to 5.5 and a low to high shrink -swell potential. Perched groundwater conditions are typical in this soil
formation and hard rock can occur at relatively shallow depths (5 to 10 feet below ground surface). The
Chewacla soils generally exhibit permeability in the range of 0.63 to 2.0 inches per hour, a pH between 5.1 and
5.5 and a low to moderate shrink swell potential. Seasonal high water table is typical at 1.5 feet below ground
surface and hard rock can also be encountered at shallow depths (4 to 15 feet below ground surface).
We did not observe rounded surface rocks on the site which can indicate the presence of diabase sills or
dikes; however, the soils at test locations P-4 and B-17 appear to be diabase. Diabase was intruded into the
Triassic Basins in some areas and it typically will weather more deeply than the surrounding materials and often
it will serve as the primary conduit for movement of subsurface water through the basin. Typically it is
impossible to develop a well producing more than 5 gpm; however in the diabase dikes, well capacities of 60 to
100 gpm are often possible. The presence of the diabase is typically not an impediment to site development, but
those areas can require special attention, particularly if wet ponds are designated for those areas.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
A topographic map displaying the locations of the borings is attached as Figure 1. Generalized
subsurface profiles prepared from the test boring data are attached to this report as Figures 2a to 2d to
graphically illustrate subsurface conditions encountered at this site and more detailed descriptions of the
conditions encountered at the individual test boring locations are then presented on the attached test boring
records.
Waqwww.geotechpa.com

Cambridge Village Development, LLC
Re: Cambridge Village
March 31, 2015
Page: 3
The subsurface profile encountered at this site generally consists of a thin, near surface layer of topsoil
extending to depths of approximately 3 to 6 inches below existing ground surface. The topsoil materials were
then underlain by soft to stiff low to moderate plasticity clay, soft to firm sandy silts, and loose to medium dense
silty sands. The near surface soils were typically quite soft to a depth of about 1.5 feet on the east side of the site
and to a depth of about 2.5 to 3 feet on the west side of the site. These soft conditions were exacerbated by the
wet conditions at the time of boring and as previously discussed resulted in the all -terrain drill rig getting stuck
twice on the west side and having to be demobilized to allow some drying. The near surface soils include some
highly plastic clay as indicated by the attached Atterberg limits data, but the majority of the near surface soils
are low plasticity materials.
The softer near surface layer was underlain by hard to very hard residual low plasticity clays and silts
which became harder with increasing depth and quickly transitioned to partially weathered rock (PWR). PWR is
defined as material exhibiting resistances of 100 bpf or greater. The PWR became harder with depth and
transitioned to very hard PWR at relatively shallow depth. At 9 locations, auger refusal was encountered prior to
achieving the desired maximum depth of boring. The depths down to PWR and very hard PWR (>50/2" SPT
value) at the test locations are presented in Figures 3 and 4 respectively. PWR is deeper in the area of borings P-
4, B-17, and B-16 and examination of the soils from Borings P-4 and B-17 indicate there is likely a diabase dike
in this area.
Borings D-4 and P-1 encountered groundwater at 18.5 and 8 ft below the ground surface respectively.
These water levels are believed to probably be perched water since the remainder of the borings were dry. Due
to the fine grained near surface soils, the site is conducive to the development of temporarily higher perched
groundwater conditions following periods of inclement weather. Additionally, regional groundwater levels will
fluctuate with seasonal and climatic changes and may be different at other times.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following preliminary recommendations are made based upon a review of the attached test boring
data, our understanding of the proposed construction, and past experience with similar projects and subsurface
conditions. Once site grading and structural plans care available, we would appreciate being provided with that
information so that these recommendations may be confirmed, extended, or modified as necessary.
Site Grading Considerations. The soils at existing grade are moisture sensitive and will be difficult to
compact during the cooler winter months of December through April or May. To avoid delays during site
grading operations, we recommend that earthwork activities be scheduled after May and prior to October if
possible, in order to facilitate site grading work. The impact of weather is best illustrated by the fact that the
soils were sufficiently soft and wet at the time of boring such that the ATV rig became stuck and had to be
temporarily demobilized. This site, and particularly the west side, should be graded in the warmer summer
months if possible.
Site grading should begin with the removal of all vegetation and topsoil from those areas designated for
construction of the new buildings and adjoining parking facilities. Based on the results of the soil test borings,
we anticipate that topsoil thickness will generally be on the order of 2 to 4 inches; however due to the heavy
vegetation on the site, somewhat deeper stripping thicknesses will be required in some areas to remove tree root
bulbs. If timber removal and/or stripping are attempted during a wet time, the organics will be pushed down into
the soft soils resulting in an apparent topsoil thickness of 12 inches or more.
GeoTe&ologies, Inc.

Cambridge Village Development, LLC
Re: Cambridge Village
March 31, 2015
Page: 4
Once stripping is completed, we recommend that at grade areas and areas designated to receive fill be
proofrolled with a partially loaded dump truck or similar piece of rubber tired equipment to identify areas
necessitating additional repair. Any area that ruts or pumps excessively in the opinion of the engineer should be
undercut to firm bearing or be repaired as directed by the engineer. Undercut should be budgeted in the project
for repair of soft near surface soils prior to fill placement. Based on the results of the soil test borings, we
anticipate repairs will be required on both sides of the site with greater depth of repair on the west side.
The amount of repair will increase if grading work is performed during the cooler winter months. In
proposed parking and landscape areas where significant depths of fill will be required, we recommend utilizing
bridgelifts if possible. Bridge lifts cannot be used below the proposed building pads. Repairs in the building
areas, if required, will need to be evaluated at the time of grading. The contractor should be prepared to push the
soft soils out and then put them back in properly compacted lifts where necessary. This will likely require some
moisture conditioning depending on the time of year of construction. If an attempt is made to grade this site in
the winter, it will likely be necessary to dispose of undercut off site and replace it with select fill resulting in
significant costs.
Difficult Excavation Considerations. The presence of shallow rock will make both mass excavation and
trench excavation for utilities difficult. Figures 3 and 4 show the depth to PWR and very hard PWR (N>50/2
inches). The PWR material typically became harder with increasing depth. It has been our experience that PVR
materials within the Triassic Basin geologic formation can generally be ripped with a large dozer such as a CAT
D8 or equivalent equipped with a single tooth ripper provided penetration resistances are no higher than 50
blows per 2 inches. Based on this consideration, it appears that a portion of the PWR is rippable and can be
removed without blasting during mass grading. Ripping will likely be needed below the depths shown on Figure
3 and blasting will be needed below the depths shown on Figure 4 during mass grading. It should also be
recognized that the depth to shallow difficult excavation materials will vary intermediate of the test locations
and that it may occur at greater or lesser depths intermediate of the test locations.
The equipment utilized for installation of utilities and foundations is less powerful and blasting is
typically required for confined excavation into the partially weathered rock (below the depths shown on Fig 3).
A large track hoe such as a CAT 330 or equivalent equipped with rock teeth can sometimes excavate materials
having standard penetration resistances in the range of 50 blows per 4 inches to 50 blows per 6 inches. However,
the rate of excavation is slow and contractors will typically request a trench rock price for excavation of any
partially weathered rock materials. Blasting of these materials will expedite utility and foundation installation.
Based on this consideration, we recommend that utility trenches be kept as shallow as possible in order to
minimize the amount of blasting that may be required. Also, consideration should be given to using a common
utility corridor and preripping that corridor during general grading of the site. Where blasting is required all
blast loosened material should be removed and be replaced with properly compacted soil. Over shot material can
settle significantly when wetted and must be removed and replaced after blasting.
Fill Placement Considerations: The near surface soils excluding topsoil will be suitable for reuse as
structural fill. Additionally, ripped PWR is likely to break down into sand and silt size particles during handling
and will look like a soil fill. There appears to be very little highly plastic clay on this site and with the magnitude
of cut and fill which will be required, it is likely that most of the highly plastic clay will be intermixed with
lower plasticity soils during grading and be suitable for use as structural fill in any area.
www.geotechpa.com

Cambridge Village Development, LLC
Re: Cambridge Village
March 31, 2015
Page: 5
The contractor should be prepared to moisture condition the soil as necessary to bring the soils within
about 2% of optimum moisture before placement. Tighter control may be needed to provide for stability at
finished subgrade. All newly placed fill should be compacted to not less than 95% of ASTM D-698 except in the
final foot below pavements and floor slabs where this requirement should be increased to 98%.
It appears that there will be a significant amount of blast rock generated on this site either as a result of
mass grading or at least as the result of utility trench installation. Blast rock typically will be oversized and
cannot be utilized in structural fills below building areas without being processed. If there will be significant
blast rock generated during the earthwork operations, past experience has shown that these materials are suitable
for use as structural fill in any area after having been processed through a crusher with a maximum screen size
of approximately 3 inches. Typically, the crushed blasted materials from this formation will appear to be a soil
with rock fragments after being processed. The amount of rock within the processed material will vary with the
nature of the material which has been blasted, and typically the quantity of rock will make density testing
impractical. However, past experience has shown that the materials can be properly compacted when placed in
thin lifts and rolled with heavy equipment such as a CAT 815 and occasionally by loaded off-road trucks where
necessary. If the blasted rock is not processed through a crusher, it should only be utilized in deep fill areas
within roadways or parking areas which will not be developed with structures in the future.
In areas of the site designated to receive more than 8 to 10 feet of fill, a minimum waiting period of 45
days should be observed from the time backfilling is completed and the beginning of building construction to
allow fill induced settlements to subside. An alternative to this would be to establish settlement points in the fill
section to monitor the fill induced settlement for a period of time until the rate of settlement has reduced to an
acceptable level.
Foundation Support Considerations. It is anticipated that portions of the new construction will bear on
properly compacted fill, that other portions will bear on residual soils, and that some of the structures will
probably be bearing on PWR or rock. Foundations bearing in residual soil and fill are typically sized for a
contact stress of 3 ksf. Shallow spread footings bearing on PWR are typically sized for a contact stress in the
range of 10 to 20 ksf. For heavier structures, such as the concrete parking decks, if the bearing elevation for the
foundations is such that settlements potentially would be excessive due to fill in some areas and cut in others,
short drilled piers extended into the MR and rock designed for 40 to 60 ksf are very well suited for foundation
support. Once a proposed site grading plan and structural loads are known, if you will provide us with that
information, we will provide detailed foundation support recommendations with settlement estimates for the
structures. Foundation support should be straight forward following proper completion of site grading and no
extraordinary measures will be needed for support.
Slab -on -Grade Considerations. Approved compacted structural fill or residual soils will provide
adequate support for conventional concrete slab -on -grades. Any fill material placed beneath the slabs should be
compacted to a minimum of 95% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density except in the final 12 inches
where this requirement should be increased to 98% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density. We
recommend that slab -on -grades be designed for an assumed subgrade modulus of 150 pci. For stone base
beneath the slab, we recommend utilizing well graded stone such as ABC rather than uniformly graded stone to
protect the subgrade soils from inclement weather. We recommend that all slab -on -grades be properly jointed in
accordance with ACI guidelines to help control shrinkage cracking.
A vapor barrier should be considered beneath the floor slab, especially beneath areas that will receive
floor coverings. Careful attention should be given to the selection of a vapor barrier and its placement taking
GeoTethnologies, In

Cambridge Village Development, LLC
Re: Cambridge Village
March 31, 2015
Page: 6
precautions to minimize the impact of the vapor barrier on slab warping and curling while providing adequate
vapor retardation.
MSE Walls: Experience in this area has shown that mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) retaining walls
are a suitable means for providing grade separation on projects. However, experience has also shown that use of
fine grained soils in the reinforced zone can result in horizontal wall deflections which result in surface
settlements over the reinforced zone and tension cracks behind the reinforced zone. If MSE walls with a
maximum height of greater than 5 feet will be used for this project, we suggest utilizing imported quarry
screenings or processed fill material within the reinforced zone. In tight radii, 57 stone backfill should be used
to reduce unit cracking.
Where MSE walls will be used against cut slopes and the potential exists for perched water during the
wetter months, we recommend importing a free draining granular material such as screenings for use in the
reinforced zone and/or using a geocomposite drainage material behind the grid on the face of the cut slope. In
planning for segmental block retaining walls, provisions should be made to allow room for a 1H:1V temporary
slope behind the back of the reinforced zone for safety of workers during construction. Including the width for
grids of 0.7 to 1.0 H, the required top of excavation will extend to approximately twice the wall height behind
the wall face. Alternatively, permanent soil nail walls with a block facing can be used. Permanent soil nail walls
have been used for other parking decks in the area. Once a grading plan has been prepared, we can assist you
with evaluating permanent retaining wall alternatives.
Design Slopes. Slopes which must be constructed as part of the project should be constructed at angles
of 2.5H:1 V or flatter if possible. If slopes steeper than 2.5H:1 V are required, we recommend that consideration
be given to utilizing geogrid reinforcement in the outer 6 feet of the slope at appropriate vertical spacings to
reduce the potential for shallow sloughing during the wetter winter months of the year. Typically, geogrid is
placed vertically 2 feet on centers and extended 6 feet back into the filled section for slope angles of 2H:1 V. If
slope angles are increased to 1.5H:1 V, the spacing on the grid is decreased to about 18 inches vertically on
center and deep-seated instability may require the use of longer grid lengths. Backfill materials placed in slopes
should be compacted to not less than 95% of the modified Proctor maximum dry density.
Pavement Design Considerations. The on-site soils should exhibit CBR values on the order of around
4% when properly compacted. These soils are typically fair for support of pavement structures and careful
earthwork practices will be required to provide a stable subgrade for pavement support. Any highly plastic clays
should be excluded from the final 12 inches beneath the pavement base course stone. Pavement subgrades
should also be reworked and compacted to not less than 98% of the standard Proctor maximum dry density.
Pavement subgrades should be proofrolled with a loaded dump truck or full water truck under the observation of
a geotechnical engineer to evaluate the subgrades prior to stone placement, and any unstable areas should be
repaired as recommended by the geotechnical engineer.
Typical pavement designs for light and heavy duty pavement conditions are presented in the tables
below. Light duty pavements are applicable to parking stalls and areas to receive light car traffic only. Heavy
duty pavements should be used for access roads and heavy traffic areas. Concrete pavements are applicable to
areas in front of dumpster pads that will receive heavy loads from garbage trucks. We can provide a detailed
pavement design once traffic volumes and makeup are known.
ON 7 www.geotechpa.com

Cambridge Village Development, LLC
Re: Cambridge Village
March 31, 2015
Page: 7
Recommended Light Duty Asphalt Pavement Section
Recommended Heavy Duty Asphalt Pavement Section
Thickness
Remarks
in.
Remarks
Surface
4,500 psi, air -entrained concrete. Joint $pacing should not
Course
2
NCDOT S9.5B
Subbase
g
NCDOT CABC Stone. Proofroll stone and compact to 100%
Subbase
g
modified NIDD.
Subgrade
Existing or imported fill compacted to 98% standard Proctor
Subgrade
max. dry density
Recommended Heavy Duty Asphalt Pavement Section
Recommended Heavy Duty Concrete Pavement Section
Thickness
Remarks
in.)
Remarks
Surface
4,500 psi, air -entrained concrete. Joint $pacing should not
Course
1.5
NCDOT S9.513
Binder Course
2.5
NCDOT 119.0 B
Subbase
g
NCDOT CABC Stone. Proofroll stone and compact to 100%
Subgrade
modified NIDD.
Subgrade
Existing or imported fill compacted to 98% standard Proctor
max. dry density
Recommended Heavy Duty Concrete Pavement Section
Careful moisture control of the subgrade and measures to prevent water from ponding on the pavement
surface and saturating the subgrade soils will be critical for long-term pavement performance. For this reason,
pavements should be sloped to promote proper drainage of surface water and control joints should be sealed to
minimize infiltration of water through the joints to the subgrade. Consideration should be given to the use of
curb drains especially in areas with landscaping irrigation to help minimize the flow of water beneath the
pavement structure. Drainage swales or French drains should be used on the uphill side of pavement areas.
Seismic Design Considerations. Based upon SPT data obtained from our test borings, the North
Carolina Building Code (NCBC), and our knowledge of the local geology in the area, we recommend that the
on-site soil profile is a site classification "C" with respect to seismic design considerations. Also, there are no
liquefiable soils due to the high fines content of the residual soil and due to the shallow near -surface rock.
Pond Considerations. It appears that stormwater ponds will be constructed on both sides of the project.
If these ponds will be wet ponds intended both for stormwater applications and as an aesthetic feature such that
the ponds are to have a standing water depth at all times, we very strongly recommend giving consideration to
installing a synthetic liner at least in the pond on the east side of the property where it appears that a diabase
dike may exist within the limits of the pond. The diabase formations typically act as a conduit for subterranean
www.geotechpa.com
Thickness
Remarks
(in.)
Pavement
4,500 psi, air -entrained concrete. Joint $pacing should not
Slab
6
exceed 12 feet in any direction. Joints should be sealed with a
silicon joint sealant after saw cutting.
Subbase
4
NCDOT CABC Stone
Subgrade
Existing or imported fill compacted to 98% standard Proctor
max. dry density
Careful moisture control of the subgrade and measures to prevent water from ponding on the pavement
surface and saturating the subgrade soils will be critical for long-term pavement performance. For this reason,
pavements should be sloped to promote proper drainage of surface water and control joints should be sealed to
minimize infiltration of water through the joints to the subgrade. Consideration should be given to the use of
curb drains especially in areas with landscaping irrigation to help minimize the flow of water beneath the
pavement structure. Drainage swales or French drains should be used on the uphill side of pavement areas.
Seismic Design Considerations. Based upon SPT data obtained from our test borings, the North
Carolina Building Code (NCBC), and our knowledge of the local geology in the area, we recommend that the
on-site soil profile is a site classification "C" with respect to seismic design considerations. Also, there are no
liquefiable soils due to the high fines content of the residual soil and due to the shallow near -surface rock.
Pond Considerations. It appears that stormwater ponds will be constructed on both sides of the project.
If these ponds will be wet ponds intended both for stormwater applications and as an aesthetic feature such that
the ponds are to have a standing water depth at all times, we very strongly recommend giving consideration to
installing a synthetic liner at least in the pond on the east side of the property where it appears that a diabase
dike may exist within the limits of the pond. The diabase formations typically act as a conduit for subterranean
www.geotechpa.com

Cambridge Village Development, LLC
Re: Cambridge Village
March 31, 2015
Page: 8
waters through the basin and could result in relatively high seepage losses if a synthetic liner is not used. Due to
the very slow permeability characteristics of the Triassic Basin soils, a liner probably would not be needed for a
pond on the west side of the site provided the base of the pond is not fractured by overshooting; however, a
properly designed and installed synthetic liner would eliminate all seepage concerns. It is recommended that
pond side slopes be maintained at an angle of 3H:1 V for maintenance and to allow for remedial work if
necessary in the future. If the structures will be conventional BMP's with a drainage media, we would be happy
to assist you in developing specifications and a detail for those structures.
Consideration can be given to installing a well in the diabase dike which is believed to exist in the
vicinity of test borings P-1 and B-17 to provide make up water for the ponds. Whether or not a well which will
produce appropriate quantities of water to provide for makeup will not be known until an attempt is made to
install and develop the well in that area.
GeoTechnologies, Inc. appreciates the opportunity to be of service on this phase of the project. We also
recommend that we be allowed to review drawings and earthwork specifications for this project at a later date to
compare with our recommendations. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning this report or if we
may be of additional service on this or other projects.
Sincerely, .�`��,, NH CA��(j'f,
GeoTechnologies, Inc.: : $
_ SEAQ. 's
9520 -Z
4
Edward B. Hearn, P.E. X1�;04"R1N��,,�P.�.
NC Registration No. 9520 ''f'tj S,�`` %
MRP/pr-ebh/lmw
Attachments
LA1150114EAU 150114ea-sub.doc
WR g I�.
• www.geotechpa.com

TABLE 1
APPROXIMATE BORING STATE PLANE COORDINATES
WEST SIDE
Boring
Elev
North
East
B-1
386
789,384
2,064,479
B-2
393
789,465
2,064,420
B-3
392
789,511
2,064,520
B-4
392
789,560
2,064,630
B-5
388
789,590
2,064,730
B-6
373
789,583
2,064,844
B-7
370
789,460
2,064,820
B-8
368
789,351
2,064,790
B-9
364
789,260
2,064,740
P-1
384
789,403
2,064,630
P-2
381
789,489
2,064,735
D-1
360
788,178
2,064,688
D-2
372
789,240
2,064,608
D-3
378
789,310
2,064,540
Note: Coordinates are appproximate.
EAST SIDE
Boring
Elev
North
East
B-10
370
789,470
2,065,139
B-11
376
789,578
2,065,174
B-12
386
789,630
2,065,288
B-13
394
789,630
2,065,390
B-14
397
789,635
2,065,500
B-15
395
789,637
2,065,592
B-16
386
789,500
2,065,498
B-17
381
789,440
2,065,420
B-18
374
789,410
2,065,300
P-3
385
789,521
2,065,282
P-4
392
789,545
2,065,420
D-4
391
789,640
2,065,704
D-5
383
789,537
2,065,710

TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF TEST BORING DATA
WEST SIDE
Boring
Elev
Depth to PWR
Depth to Very
Hard PWR
B-1
386
7
7
B-2
393
3
7.5
B-3
392
5
8.S
B-4
392
4.5
9
B-5
388
3.5
11.5
B-6
373
8
12
B-7
370
4.5
8.5
B-8
368
3.5
8
B-9
364
4
9
P-1
384
3
7.5
P-2
381
2.5
> 15
D-1
360
3.5
8
D-2
372
3
8
D-3
378
4.5
7
EAST SIDE
Boring
Elev
Depth to PWR
Depth to Very
Hard PWR
B-10
370
6.5
8.5
B-11
376
6.5
8.5
B-12
386
3
7
B-13
394
3
3
B-14
397
2.5
7.5
B-15
395
4.5
4.5
B-16
386
11.5
11.5
B-17
381
12.5
> 15
B-18
374
6
6
P-3
385
4
8
P-4
392
> 15
> 15
D-4
391
3.S
7.5
D-5
383
6.5
14.5
Partially weathered rock is where ripping starts with a dozer and difficult (blast) excavation begins in utility trenches.
Very hard PWR typically requires blasting even in general site grading.

APPROXIMATE TEST BORING LOCATIONS
1!
,r /*
rvr , ;
yr' B-12 B P-7;
,
-13 --5
B-4 B-1
P 4 0_
ED-5
77
B-2 B ®f+
CI7 o
_ - J
i
-17
r,
_o
f
-7- B-9 { 1
1"
Jj IN-
w
\ w
Cambridge Village Topo N
•�,pubW
�
40o Feet a. afaat.aha„ po,aren.
I kxh 2W fed errd as AIOr jqwa+eeM arfm~
Ampfeyfora. eat 9-.b, as amoraf Entfpa arm
FIGURE 1

Elevation (Feet) GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE LEGEND
■ Topsoil
395 B - 3 ® Low Plasticity Clay
B-4 Q Partially Weathered Rock
7,14
390..................................................................... . .......................... . 5 ..................................................................... High Plasticity Clay
B - 5 ® Low Plasticity Silt
p'. 50/5.5"
78 ® Clayey Sand
.� . 3
• ........................�J:. • 8 Standard Penetration Resistance
385 ......... B..,,.1 .................................................... ........................ .
50/.5" 0
77 B-2 p . 4 Q' 50/4.5" 7l�ll Auger Refusal
5 4' 4 100
01
5
380.......... .. .........................15., .
.1>
.p • 4. 50/.5„ ........... .
74
50/2.5"
6. 50/5" •Q • .L> .
d, p• A 100 0 .
B-6
375..........[ ........,.,...:p........................,.:aA:.. ,.......,.........,....,........,......,......
J .
7
p q ' 50/1" 50/1"
100
�.
370.......... a 5d/.5 ........... 72
...............D....................................................... :.............
..............
•4 •
• 50/.5" 50/0"
d.
:t> . 50/2.25"
365..........................................4................................................................................................................. ..............
�
50/0"
.D .
50/.25"
360
PROJECT: SCALE: As Shown
Cambridge Village% - - .
JOB No:1-15-0114EA
Durham, North Carolina �•••� �•• ••••••
FIGURE No:2A

IElevation (Feet)
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
-------------'-------
D~3
-------------
Ko -1
--.
385
D-2
.....................
z--'
--.
3
P-2
38Q-.-.------.----------.-.--'
79
S0�T....
7
..........
---.
._-
D-1
' ----'
------------'
1�
50/6"
3'p........................................................................
' ----'
------------'
5U/2"......
21
..........
5011^
��1e0/11,
��|
B- 7
37O---�
-----------------���
B_8
oon "--
������
'
12
Iz
50/4"
365---�
�V��^-�
--��~Kk----------------�
15
501^
3wv---�
----'
--
-------------.
50/1^
355----------f
.
.......
......
50M ...........................................
35v-----------------
-----------------
^4p------------------------------------
-------------'-------
D~3
-------------
--.
D-2
.....................
z--'
--.
79
......................
---'
---.
._-
D-1
' ----'
------------'
1�
' ----'
------------'
21
5011^
��1e0/11,
��|
340
PROJECT: SCALE: As Shown
Cambridge Village
CeoTe(hnologies, In(.
Durham, North Carolina FIGURE No:213

IElevation (Feet)
400
395
390
385 .........
380
B-11
375 ............................ . . .... 13......
B-10 72
370.......... ............ .. .....
9
365 .......... .25........................
360 ............................................
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE
50/1"
B-15
17. 6 ...... ...... ­ .......
................................................................
B-14
..................
13.13 ..........
7
'7 .......
.....................................................
7 7•50/3"
9
B-17
...................
. 4'. '50/2"
.3.9 .........
.......................
............
B-12
7
9
50/2
.......
..
71
............
.
..
17
............
B-18
I ..............
. .. ............
10
50/4"
50/2"
10
a. ............
......
50/2"
..........
.............................
..
50/1.5"
50/2"
.
..w ............
.. ...................
5013"
.
..........
50/0.5'*
50/1"
J�
...............................................
..............................
............
50/2"
................
50/1"
B-15
17. 6 ...... ...... ­ .......
................................................................
B-16
50/11,
..............
.....................................................
7,
9
B-17
5.0/1
.3.9 .........
.......................
............
7
9
50/2
.......
..
71
............
..
17
............
B-18
I ..............
10
50/2"
.............................
..
31 ........
.
..w ............
50/6'.
J�
...............................................
50/2"
................
"s
-?.1*
� 50/2"
.................................................
t�.
.......
355
PROJECT: SCALE: As Shown
Cambridge Village JOB No:1-15-0114EA
Durham, North Carolina FIGURE No:2C
LEGEND
Topsoil
Low Plasticity Clay
Low Plasticity Slit
Partially Weathered Rock
Moderate Plasticity Clay
Silty Sand
Low Plasticity Clay to Silt
Clayey Sand
8 Standard Penetration Resistance
Auger Refusal

Elevation (Feet) GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE LEGEND
■ Topsoil
395 ® Clayey Sand
P-4 D-4 4Partially Weathered Rock
390............................................................ 10..................................... 7
.................................................................. ® Low Plasticity Silt
5
® Silty Sand
P - 3 15 Q 50/5.5" ® Low Plasticity Clay to Silt
385.................................................. A ......................................... ......................................................................
4
.L . D - 5 ® Moderate Plasticity Clay
27 :Q 50/1.5" Fill
50/3" 4 • 5
380.................................................................................................... ....................................... 8 Standard Penetration Resistance
L> . :� .
�4
6 • '6 ' 30 11AIW' Auger Refusal
q:. 51 A' 50/1"
p 50/2" .6.
q
375.......... Q.........................................................................................
. ........................................... :fj. .....................
50/6„
50/0.5"
q: 50/4" .Ci
370...............................................................................................................................................
50/2.5"
.a
365..................................................................................................................................................... a
d' 50/1"
.D
360............................................................
50/1"
355
PROJECT: SCALE: As Shown
Cambridge Village% - � � � .
JOB No:1-15-0114EA
Durham, North Carolina r.
FIGURE No:2D

X
X
,, F
Su
i
> 7-7�
f / T W Alexander,- J n!
'XX 30
IO � ^' )
{6.t
i
r`
V+�t
�.x 4x0
i
c '
/j? qc /J064'
fFs� Sc -ate Ridg tiara"
Rol 4c.
NDisclaimer
A
Maps makes every effort to produce and publish 0 100 200 400 Feet the most current and accurate information possible.
However, the maps are produced for information purposes,
1 inch = 200 feet and are NOTsurveys. No warranties, expressed or implied
,are provided for the data therein, its use,or its interpretation.
DEPTH TO PARTIALLY WEATHERED ROCK
FIGURE 3

.,�Sunfield Cir
o f
e m A�0
00
T W Alexander. Dr
q } 3 7.5 -7.5 �. T
x�(�_t tt O
8.51
.5 x x
S.
X x
.5 5�
,
I
370
410
t ,
4
Od
v-
0
NDisclaimer
•
Maps makes every effort to produce and publish
Possible Diabase n 0 100 200 400 Feet the most current and accurate information possible.
I t t t I t i t I However, the maps are produced for information purposes,
N
1 inch = 200 feet and are NOT surveys. No warranties, expressed or implied
,are provided for the data therein, its use, or its interpretation.
DEPTH TO VERY HARD (>50/2") PWR
FIGURE 4

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.1
3.0
7.0
15.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
384.00 10 26 40 60 100
Topsoil
CL
Firm Brown and Tan Fine Sandy Silty CLAY with
Occasional Roots
1-2-3
Very Hard Red and Gray Clayey SILT
ZI
379.0
12-30-44
Harder Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as
Red Fine Sandy SILT
50/2"
374.0
501.5"
369.0
Auger Refusal at 15.0'
364.0
359.0
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-1
DATE 2-27-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
CedTe(hnologies, Inc.
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(Fr.)
0.0
0.2
3.0
7.5
19.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
382.50 10 20 40 60 100
Topsoil
CH
Firm Gray, Orange, and Red Silty CLAY
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
Brown and Purple Fine Sandy SILT
.6
5015"
377.5
Very Hard Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as
4.
Red Fine Sandy SILT
5011"
.:!A'
372.5
IS
501.5"
367.5
5010"
Boring Terminated at 19.01
362.5
357.5
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-2
DATE 2-27-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(Fr.)
0.0
0.2 -
0&1
5.0
8.5
22.0
TEST BORING RECORD I
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
393.5 fi 10 M 40 60 1(M
Topsoil
Finn Brown and Purple Fine Sandy Silty CLAY
Hard Purple and Gray Fine Sandy Clayey SILT
M1
HE
388.5
16-28-50/5.5"
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
Red Fine Sandy SILT
Very Hard Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as
Red Fine Sandy SILT
501.5"
383.5
501.5"
378.5
5010"
373.5
Auger Refusal at 22.5 ft
368.5
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-3
DATE 2-27-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.2
1.5
3.5
4.5
9.0
`loaf
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
392.00 10 20 46 60 IN
Topsoil
387.0
1-2-3
28-50/6"
Firm Orange and Tan Sandy Silty SILT
Loose Orange and Tan Silty Clayey Fine SAND
Sc
Hard Gray and Purple Fine Sandy Clayey SILT
CL
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
4
Red Fine Sandy SILT
,[>
.4
.Li
4
.Li
4
50/1 "
Very Hard Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as
Q
Red Fine Sandy SILT
.6
382.0
4
.L>
d
.L>
d
.L>
.l>
4
50/.5"
377.0
4
.L>
4
d
.l>
4
50/.5"
372.0
4
c
d
�
:Q
u
Auger Refusal at 22.5
367.0
a
c
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-4
DATE 2-27-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
CeoTe(hnologles, Inc.
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
\ Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH DESCRIPTION
(Fr.)
0.0
0.3
3.5
11.5
19.0
LTEST BORING RECORDj
ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(Fr.) (BLOWS/Fr.) SIX INCHES
388.00 10 20 40 60 100
-.Topsoil
CL
Soft Orange and Tan Fine Sandy Silty CLAY
1-1-2
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
Red Fine Sandy SILT
.6
5014.5"
;!.1:
383.0
6
50/2.5"
378.0
Very Hard Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as
-:;I:
Red Fine Sandy SILT
5011"
373.0
5010"
Boring Terminated at 19.0 ft
368.0
363.0
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-5
DATE 2-25-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.4
3.0
8.0
12.0
14.1
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
376.00 10 20 40 60 100
Topsoil
CL
Firm Brown Fine Sandy Silty CLAY
1-2-5
Hard Orange and Red Fine Sandy SILT
ML
371.0
15-31-41
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
<\
Red Fine Sandy SILT
.L>
D
50/2.25'
.6
366.0
4
4
Very Hard Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as
4
Red Fine Sandy SILT
.6
50/.25'
Boring Terminated at 14.1 ft
361.0
356.0
c
F
c
a
c
u
c
v
351.0
a
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-6
DATE 2-25-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(Fr.)
0.0
0.3
4.5
8.5
14.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(Fr.) (BLOWS/Yr.) SIX INCHES
370.00 10 20 40 60 IN
Topsoil
SC
Firm Tan to Orange Clayey Silty Fine to Medium
SAND
365.0
2-4-8
14-22-50/3.5"
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
4
Red Brown Slightly Fine Sandy SILT
.[>
4
.C>
4
.L>
Q
Very Hard Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as
Very Hard Red Brown Fine Sandy SILT w/Rock
.6
Fragments
4
360.0
.L>
4
.L>
4
.C>
4
.L>
50/1"
Boring terminated at 14'
355.0
350.0
i
c
i
c
i
2
u
345.0
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-7
DATE 3-20-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(F.)
0.0
0.3
1.5
3.5
14.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
368.00 10 20 40 60 100
Topsoil
—1
SM
1-1-3
Very Loose Tan Silty Fine to Medium SAND
Firm to Stiff Tan to Yellow Slightly Fine Sandy
CL
Silly CLAY
5015"
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
4
Red Brown Fine Sandy SILT w/Rock Fragments
.6
:4:
363.0
50/2"
358.0
50/3"
Boring terminated at 14'
353.0
348.0
343.0
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B- 8
DATE 3-20-15
PAGE 1 OF I
CeoTe(hnologies, Inc
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.3
4.0
9.0
14.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
364.00 10 20 40 60 106
Topsoil
SC
Firm to Dense Yellow & Gray Clayey Silty Fine to
Medium SAND
IN
IN
5-7-8
30-50/5.5"
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
d
Red Brown Slightly Fine Sandy Clayey SILT
.6
359.0
.L>
d
.Li
Q
.l>
A
50/3"
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
q
Red Brown Fine Sandy SILT w/Rock Fragments
.6
354.0
.Q'
.6
4
JS
4
D
Boring terminated at 14'
349.0
344.0
c
C,
C,
0
C,
u
a
c
v
a
339.0
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B- 9
DATE 3-20-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
W.
CeoTechnologles,
4t,
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
\ Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.5
2.5
6.5
8.5
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
370.06 10 20 40 60 IN
Topsoil
Stiff Red Brown Silty CLAY
CL
2-4-5
Very Stiff Dark Brown Fine Sandy SILT
NII.
365.0
8-12-13
Partially Weathered Rock
4
.LS
4
Auger Refusal at 8.5'
360.0
355.0
350.0
c
h
L
c
345.0
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-10
DATE 3-20-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
nologies, Inc.
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(F•)
0.0
0.4
2.5
6.5
8.5
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
376.00 10 70 40 60 100
Topsoil
CL
Stiff Red Brown & Gray Slightly Fine Sandy Silty
CLAY
CH
2-6-7
Very Stiff Red Brown Slightly Fine Sandy Clayey
ML
SILT
371.0
13-28-44
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
4
Red Brown Clayey SILT
.6
<1'
50/1.5"
Auger Refusal at 8.5'
366.0
361.0
356.0
e-
i
r
t
c
i
c
i
351.0
t
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-11
DATE 3-19-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
CeoTe(hnologies, Inc.
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(yr.)
0.0
0.4
1.5
3.0
7.0
20.0
TEST BORING RECORD I
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
3R6.0f) 16 70 46 60 106
Topsoil
SM
2-4-6
Loose Orange Silty Fine SAND
Firm Orange to Tan Silty Fine to Medium SAND
SM
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
Red Brown Fine Sandy SILT
50/4"
381.0
Very Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very
Hard Red Brown Fine Sandy SILT w/Rock
Fragments
50/2"
376.0
5011"
371.0
5011"
366.0
Boring terminated at 20'
361.0
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-12
DATE 3-19-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
CeoTe(hnologies, Inc
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

TEST BORING RECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(yr.) (Fr.) (BLOWS/ff.) SIX INCHES
0.0 394.00 10 20 40 60 100
0.3
3.0
15.0
Topsoil
CL
Firm Red Brown Silty CLAY
2-3-4
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
Gf
Red Brown Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy SILT
50/2"
389.0
50/2"
384.0
.6
5015"
379.0
Boring terminated at 15'
50/3"
374.0
369.0
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-13
DATE 3-19-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(Y'•)
0.0
0.4
1.0
2.5
7.5
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
397.00 10 20 40 60 100
Topsoil
SM
1-2-5
Very Loose Tan Silty Fine SAND
Firm Tan & Red Silty CLAY
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
4
Red Brown Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy SILT
4'
;p
50/3"
4
392.0
.6
A
.LS
.4'
Very Hard Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as
Q
Very Hard Red Brown Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy
.6
SILT
4
50/1"
4
387.0
4
.LS
Q
.C>
d
.L>
4
;p
50/2"
.
382.0
IS
4
.Ci
d
.D
d
.L>
4
50/1.5"
377.0
i
4
`
d
�
.D
4
d
q
50/0.5"
'
372.0
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-14
DATE 3-18-15
PAGE 1 OF 2
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

TEST BORING RECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
0 10 20 40 60 100
27.5
JOB NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
PAGE 2 OF 2
1-15-0114EA
B-14
3-18-15 � ..... - - "o�
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615
a
:v
:v
Auger Refusal at 27.5'
367.0
362.0
357.0
352.0
c
F
c
c
c
u
u
347.0
JOB NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
PAGE 2 OF 2
1-15-0114EA
B-14
3-18-15 � ..... - - "o�
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.3
3.0
4.5
20.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
395.00 10 20 40 60 100
Topsoil
CL
ML
�
Firm Red Brown Slightly Fine Sandy Clayey SILT
390.0
2-3-3
20-50/2"
Dense Tan Red Brown Silty Fine SAND
SM
Partially Weathered Rock to Very Hard Partially
Z
Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard Red
IS
Brown Fine Sandy SILT w/Occasional Rock
Fragments
5011
385.0
5011"
380.0
50/2"
.6
375.0
Boring terminated at 20'
370.0
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-15
DATE 3-18-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
('T•)
0.0
0.4
2.5
5.5
11.5
15.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(Fr.) (BLOWS/Yr.) SIX INCHES
386.00 10 20 40 60 100
Topsoil
Very Loose Tan Silty Fine SAND
SM
2-3-6
Firm Brown Clayey Silty Fine to Medium SAND
SC
0
381.0
20-15-24
Hard Red Brown Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy SILT
ML
376.0
22-31-40
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
4
Red Brown Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy SILT
.D
4
.LD
d
.[j
50/2"
371.0
Boring terminated at 15'
366.0
i
i
i
i
i
361.0
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-16
DATE 3-18-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
\ Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.4
3.5
9.5
12.5
15.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(Fr.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
391 on 1 n 211 An An I nn
Topsoil
Stiff Brown Silty CLAY
CH
CH
2-4-5
Firm Brown Clayey SILT
NM
376.0
371.0
2-3-4
Dense Dark Brown Silty Fine SAND
SM
7-13-17
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very
SM
Dense Dark Brown Silty Fine SAND
50/6"
366.0
Boring terminated at 15'
361.0
u
c
c
f
c
0
c
u
d
c
v
2
a
356.0
P
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-17
DATE 3-18-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
\ Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(FT.)
0.0
0.2
2.5
6.0
15.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/Fr.) SIX INCHES
375.06 10 2(1 40 66 160
Topsoil
SC
Stiff Orange to Gray Fine to Medium Sandy Silty
CLAY
5-4-6
Hard Light Tan & Gray Fine Sandy Clayey SILT
ML
370.0
18-24-32
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
4
Red Brown Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy SILT
.CS
w/Rock Fragments
p'
.CS
4
.L>
Q
39-50/2"
365.0
.4'
.D
4
.L>
A
.CS
50/2"
.L>
360.0
Boring terminated at 15'
355.0
C
e
c
a
C
u
C
v
350.0
a
c
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER B-18
DATE 3-19-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(F•)
0.0
0.4
3.5
8.0
11.61
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
360.00 10 20 40 60 100
Topsoil
Very Stiff Red Brown & Tan Slightly Fine Sandy
Silty CLAY
3-5-8
50/3"
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very
4
Dense Red Brown Silty Fine SAND
.6
Q
355.0
.C>
4
.L>
4
.L>
Very Hard Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as
d
Very Hard Red Brown Fine Sandy SILT w/Rock
.6
50/1"
Fragments
4
.6
350.0
Q
.L>
4
4
.C>
4
50/0.5"
Q
345.0
D
4
<1
.L>
50/0.25-
Auger Refusal at 18.5'
340.0
i
c
C
C
C
u
335.0
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER D-1
DATE 3-20-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
CeoTe(hnologles, Inc.
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(yr.)
0.0
0.2
3.0
4.5
7.5
23.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FI'.) (BLOWS/Fr.) SIX INCHES
372.00 in 2n 46 6n 1 nn
Topsoil
CL
Firm Brown and Red Silty Fine Sandy CLAY
367.0
1
1
1 1
1
1-2-5
29-50/6"
Hard Red Fine Sandy SILT
ML
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
4
Red Fine Sandy SILT
.lS
.4
.L>
4
Very Hard Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as
4
Red Fine Sandy SILT
4�
.[>
50/.5"
Q
362.0
.L>
4
d
.C>
d
.Q
<1
:Q
50/1"
.4
357.0
.CS
4
.L>
4
.L>
4
4
50/1"
r
r
352.0
c
4
c
.LS
c
4
0
u
.0
z
Auger Refusal at 23.0 ft
a
347.0
P
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER D-2
DATE 2-27-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
\ Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(Fr.)
0.0
0.2
3.5
4.5
7.0
14.5
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
378.00 10 20 40 60 100
Topsoil
Soft Tan and Orange Silty Fine Sandy CLAY
373.0
1-1-2
30-50/6"
Hard Red Fine Sandy SILT
ML
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
4
Red Fine Sandy SILT
.6
.4
.L>
Very Hard Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as
4
Red Fine Sandy SILT
.�
D
.D
50/1.5"
.�j
368.0
4
.L>
�4
.C>
d
.LS
4
.D
363.0
50/0"
Auger Refusal of 14.5 ft
358.0
i
c
t
c
c
v
u
353.0
c
Dry at Time of Boring
JOB NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
PAGE 1 OF 1
1-15-0114EA
D-3 ........
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(Fr.)
0.0
0.3
3.5
7.5
NIX11
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
1910(1 10 26 d0 60 106
Topsoil
SC
Very Loose Tan Clayey Silty Fine to Medium
SAND (Wet)
1-1-1
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
4
Red Brown Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy SILT
.6
50/5.5"
q'
386.0
.L>
d
.O
-4
Very Hard Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as
4
Very Hard Red Brown Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy
.6
SILT w/Rock Fragments
A
:p
50/1.5"
4
381.0
4
.L>
4
.L>
d
.Li
4
:Q
50/1"
a
376.0
.C>
4
.Li
4
.C>
.s
4
50/0.5"
•6
371.0
Auger Refusal at 20'
c
c
c
i
366.0
Groundwater encountered at 18.5' at time of boring.
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER D-4
DATE 3-18-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

TEST BORING RECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FI'.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
0.0 383.00 10 20 40 60 100
1.0
PAIN
6.5
14.5
25.0
Fill - Very Soft Brown Clayey SILT
ML
Loose Gray Brown Silty Fine to Medium SAND
SM
1-2-3
Very Stiff Tan & Light Gray Fine Sandy Silty
CL
CLAY to Clayey SILT
ML
378.0
7-10-20
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
-4
Red Brown Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy SILT
.ti
4
.l>
4
.[j
50/6"
Q
373.0
,L>
.4
.C>
.LS
4
.L>
<1
368.0
50/2.5"
Very Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very
Q
Hard Red Brown Fine Sandy SILT w/Occasional
.6
Rock Fragments
Q
4
.L>
4
u
�j
50/1"
4
363.0
4
:Q
o
c
'a
a
.0
50/1"
e
358.0
c
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER D-5
DATE 3-18-15
PAGE 1 OF 2
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615 n do

TEST BORING RECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
0 10 20 40 60 100
Boring terminated at 25'
353.0
348.0
343.0
338.0
c
C
F
L'
C
C
LL
e
`c
v
333.0
d
JOB NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
PAGE 2 OF 2
1-15-0114EA
D-5
3-18-15
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(Fr.)
0.0
0.2
3.0
8.0
14.1
TEST BORING RECORD I
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(Fr.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
384-0fi M M AR M I fifi
Topsoil
CL
Soft Orange and Brown Silty Fine Sandy CLAY
1-1-2
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
Red Fine Sandy SILT
.6
50/5.75"
379.0
�z
Very Hard Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as
Red Fine Sandy SILT
50/2"
374.0
1
1
1 1
1 1
50111,
Boring Terminated at 14.1 ft
369.0
1
1
1
1
364.0
C
C
P
LL
359.0
Water Encountered at 8ft Below Ground Surface
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER P-1
DATE 3-2-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

TEST BORING RECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWS/Fr.) SIX INCHES
0.0 381.00 10 20 40 60 100
0.4
1.5
15.0
Topsoil
MI7/
1-1-6
Very Soft Yellow Clayey SILT
Stiff Orange Silty CLAY
CL
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
Q
Red Brown Slightly Clayey Fine Sandy SILT
.6
4
.L>
50/6"
4
376.0
.Li
4
.L>
4
.L>
4
IS
4
:0
50/3.5"
a
371.0
.L>
d
4
.L>
4
.L>
4
50/4"
Q
366.0
Boring terminated at 15'
361.0
v
u
c
C
c
c
c
n
c
LL
d
C
v:
Z
a
356.0
JOB NUMBER
BORING NUMBER
DATE
PAGE 1 OF 1
1-15-0114EA \.._......
P-2
eoTechnologles,
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
\ Raleigh, NC 27615

DEPTH
(yr.)
0.0
0.4
U
2'
4.0
8.0
15.0
TEST BORING RECORD
DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (BLOWS/Yr.) SIX INCHES
385.06 10 20 40 60 IN
Topsoil
SM
2-1-3
50/3"
Very Loose Tan Silty Fine SAND
Soft Tan Very Clayey SILT
NIL
Very Stiff Orange Fine Sandy SILT
ML
Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very Hard
Q
Red Brown Fine Sandy SILT
6
380.0
Very Partially Weathered Rock - Sampled as Very
Hard Red Brown Fine Sandy SILT
50/2"
375.0
50/4"
370.0
Boring terminated at 15'
365.0
360.0
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER P-3
DATE 3-19-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

TEST BORING RECORD
DEPTH DESCRIPTION ELEVATION PENETRATION BLOWS PER
(FT.) (FT.) (BLOWS/FT.) SIX INCHES
0.0 392.00 10 20 40 60 100
0.5
4.0
15.5
Topsoil
Stiff Dark Brown Silty CLAY
CH
1
2-4-6
Stiff to Hard Greenish Brown Slightly Fine Sandy
ML
Clayey SILT
387.0
4-7-8
382.0
9-11-16
377.0
16-23-28
Boring terminated at 15.5'
372.0
N
0
c�
a
(7
Q
0
0
N
Z
Q
367.0
JOB NUMBER 1-15-0114EA
BORING NUMBER P-4
DATE 3-18-15
PAGE 1 OF 1
3200 Wellington Court, Suite 108
Raleigh, NC 27615

JAN 1 1 2017
51
l
R,
LOT 112 (PHASE 13)
At. ALEXANDER PLACE
II
X d " T.W. ALEXANDER DJkIVE
s
--------
--------------------------_ :
I FT.W.
(PHASE 7)
ANDER PLACE
20 AC.t _-------
i
1 / i
IMPAC AR�A 9A--- ---'
4 /
REFE Tb IM.2
I
a
/ a /
� 4
�ES
ING
NORTH
0 50 100 150
SCALE IN FEET
PLD
PIEDMONT LAND DESIGN, LLP
8522-204 SIX FORKS ROAD
RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 27615
919.845.7600 PHONE
919.845.7703 FAX
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LLJ
Q
J
Lu
p
Q
U
Q
Z
—j
� �
> U
mZ
U =
U
CD Lu
Lf) J
6' �
ISSUED: 05 JAN 2017
REVISIONS:
DRAWN BY: MGD
CHECKED BY: JDL
PROJECT: CVBCRJTR
OVERALL SITE
PLAN
DWG. NO. IM.1

N/F
BRIAR CREEK ARBORS DRIVE
RETAIL LLC
DB 15517, PG 1701
SM 2013, PG. 1286
PIN: 0768.01-49-4970
N/F
WAKEMED PROPERTY SERVICES
OB 13975. PG 1874
BM 2010, PG. 552
PIN: 0768.01-48-1917
i
1
\ EXIST. SAN SEWER NN`�
EXIST. TOP -377.76
INV IN (NORTH) -369.83
/ INV IN (EAST) -370.58
-s° INV OUT -369.76
�--EX
EXIST. 8' SAN f 7
SEW R�� -�
-NOT 13' 35'E `--I
/ / / FufuF�' 20 -r /'__�
�f�££AAIIEAENT ARkA 3�3.5I`� `\\ \'/ �' i -7„ /
/, '
/ EASEMD/T /�RPATE I.
PIG
3 , E% EAy1
MW II
/ 1 .-/;I
LVT 142 (PHA�,�)
JAL
6196 5136
�.CC'y%u�;
` 1
I 366.oa
171'
- 6xSLl7Pi /
I 77W. ALF
— I \
U
/ W`ALL"
/ / I
4 _
o
I
E%IST6T
EX. [ .7 ? MH \
. TOTO 68.7 1 I
\ MH INACCESSIEiICE Ih 1\\ W
INV IN=J81.4B• y
''ry 11iY OlR=361.28•
(•RCiER TO NOTE J6 ON l
U
/EXIST. SAN SEWER NP / I
EXIST. TOP -359.18 i
/
NEW TOP -360.53 INV IN (NORTH) -351.93 '
INV IN ("ST) 351.93
INV Ol1T=349.56
I
' 6
`SA CRY OF RALEIGH V y SEWER
EASEMENT
I
PG5EMENT BM2005,
PG539
N/F
ALEXANDER GROUP LLC I
DB 12727, PG 972
BM 2006. PG. 407
PIN: 0768.01-49-4970
NORTH
0 40 80 120
SCALE IN FEET: 1" = 40'
PLD
PIEDMONT LAND DESIGN, LLP
5522-204 SD( FORMS ROAD
RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27615
919.845.7600 PHONE
919.845.7703 FAX
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
i
Lu
::j
Q
oor
J
U
<
i
J F—
(Lu
V
O 0
C)
m
cl�
=
Uco
ao
2i
W
Q
L0 J
ISSUED: PROGRESS
DRAWN BY: MGD
CHECKED BY: JDL
PROJECT: CVBC
LOT 112
CONCEPTUAL
GRADING PLAN
DWG. NO. CSP.2.00

/ EXIST. 0100
/ 9ACX WATER
I
7
i 4i �
M/
O
I
/ P ATE DF
(V �-1 EVENT/
ELISE R I
L7� DOUN
W ' RALEIGH AF
FLOpD S�U
c
0
w I
U --
/
/
l� y
I / i
EXIST. HEADWALL
TOP=367.20'
L
lkixI/W
wl I
L'u 1I
1LL /
ti
I
/I I
I
/ I
- --'� - - EXIST
JCP I .
- FFyyX / I .8' RCP
32
/
/
1 I
8.7. 1
378.54 /
N SEWER M i
.27'
385.87'
/
48 I
I
I
I
I
I
NORTH
0 40 80 120
SCALE IN FEET: 1" = 40'
PLD
PIEDMONT LAND DESIGN, LLP
9322-204 SDC FORKS ROAD
MlEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27615
119. * 845 7600 PHONE
119.845.7703 FAX
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Lu Q
w Z
w Q
_I Z U
F_/
LU w
�
Q Q TZ
C r W
Q O J
C) °rte°
ISSUED: PROGRESS
REVISIONS:
DRAWN BY: MGD
CHECKED BY: JDL
PROJECT: CVBC
LOT 8
CONCEPTUAL
GRADING PLAN
DWG. NO. CSP.2.01

BM 2013, PG. 1286
\ PIN: 0768.01-49-4970 1 V
.TdP 380.10
IN 37410''
OUT
.izo'�'''/
49\�
//� Ll
E
NOOSE RIPA'E 1-11
b0' fJCCN SfDE NFA50R�Q
/ FROM T OF
_ �'(�"'i
/IDD 1/EM LUyUPWN
\ BOVNDA PFFRR ITY
\ N15' 56' 10'E I I / , / , / / RALEIG/ MPROy I
,.i-"..�' -' s�%v w34a /
CttY OI RAL
/ AfjY
y\�\\\�� \\ �TH'- WARD/ ///,6Nu EMENTj
�MzoyS. ,Pe 1z65T3�r',%v
/ / E.1/5f. 68,7 9 SEyER-
bP- /s680
�.IH
NV/IN=$611I(NACCES�IBL8•E/ /
I'iVy o ,( pl.28•
'T y //T�T� 1^^EFR /TO
Lot-11� 1CX1 /
WWW (CC /
'PRI RY jt?EE
C SERVATIr ARBA
/ ONE 2 N L15E/DUFjI
BM -7,
1
'
EXIST. CB' _
TOP 375.55 -
6/ \
EXIS
TOP 3 2 }7
IN 9.
\ OUT 379. \\
1
.5
N/F
WAKENED PROPERTY SERVICES
DB 13975, PG 1874
BM 2010, PG. 552
PIN: 0]68.01-48-1917
\ El ST, SAN SEWER MH``'
R TOP -377.78
u i INV IN (NORTH).}69.83
\TE ORurw E / INV IN (EAST) -370.58
r ,s?R INV OUT -369.76 _
S EXIST. 8" SAN
Zl _ SE. R
I -7
lRIVATE 1.RAIFIAG�
zot�i� Pc tis
� EwsT. IIHEADW �L / I / I 1 11 I / rL
I 1
-N1
SECLrrNDRv REE
NSE�`/ATJJ N f .
iNATCCCCCC CPLIANCQM$ �014�651 /I
NETE)E Y D / I
/41 ) , \
(if1�''/ 11\
/I /9
/
OUT }69.99 1 ' 6 a0 `\ \ \� / i i // 11y \�\�,,--',,__-�,,�'� ' ' �:� /�, �,✓I' A //� ' �/��l r ��`j�� � •�'�%i %� •_� . __ ��-
�° _ v vvY / / /111 v�-�_-.� ./ . '�,,.''�' �'' A' 1'�,/ ii „✓ / �l vq � � i/ / ' � A ✓ �
\ ^ \ /EXIST. SAN SEWER MW
TOP=359.18
\ / \\\ ' / ',',/ MHy/
p , I I INV IN 9}
(NORTH) -}51.
\ I �.jINV IN (EAST)
=351.93
INV OUT=349.56 S/e
EXIST CB PRIMARY TREE CONSERVATION
TOP -368.75A" /� I AREA -ZONE 2 NEUSE BUFFER
Nv IN.363.55 / / / / �' / / o / X
\ \ 4 / ' i h / / 8M 2014 PC 155 f
NV OUT -367.45 / WITHIN RECORDED SAN SEWER 9
I
EASEMENT)q.
/ /
20' CITY OF RALEIGH
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT BM2005,
PG539
EXIST CB
TOP -365.18
INV IN -358.82
INV OUT=358.68
EXIST. SAN SEWER MH
INV -348.25
/ P /
EXIST CB
TOP -364.74
INV OUT -360.10
' 4 '
/ /
B•
20' PTY OF RALEIGH
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT BM2005,
/
• ,
R/F
ALEXANDER GROUP LLC
DB 12727, PG 972
-
BM 2006, PG. 407
PIN: 0768.01-49-4970
_E_%6�_-�-__
20'
EAS
/
/------------NjJ
.'SA /I
MB
/
BRIM CREEK/ARBORS DRIVE''��
NV tti 66.73 - '
EXI
RETAIL LLC / �Y' / !/
DB 15517. PC 1701\\9
!/
/INV
BM 2013, PG. 1286
\ PIN: 0768.01-49-4970 1 V
.TdP 380.10
IN 37410''
OUT
.izo'�'''/
49\�
//� Ll
E
NOOSE RIPA'E 1-11
b0' fJCCN SfDE NFA50R�Q
/ FROM T OF
_ �'(�"'i
/IDD 1/EM LUyUPWN
\ BOVNDA PFFRR ITY
\ N15' 56' 10'E I I / , / , / / RALEIG/ MPROy I
,.i-"..�' -' s�%v w34a /
CttY OI RAL
/ AfjY
y\�\\\�� \\ �TH'- WARD/ ///,6Nu EMENTj
�MzoyS. ,Pe 1z65T3�r',%v
/ / E.1/5f. 68,7 9 SEyER-
bP- /s680
�.IH
NV/IN=$611I(NACCES�IBL8•E/ /
I'iVy o ,( pl.28•
'T y //T�T� 1^^EFR /TO
Lot-11� 1CX1 /
WWW (CC /
'PRI RY jt?EE
C SERVATIr ARBA
/ ONE 2 N L15E/DUFjI
BM -7,
1
'
EXIST. CB' _
TOP 375.55 -
6/ \
EXIS
TOP 3 2 }7
IN 9.
\ OUT 379. \\
1
.5
N/F
WAKENED PROPERTY SERVICES
DB 13975, PG 1874
BM 2010, PG. 552
PIN: 0]68.01-48-1917
\ El ST, SAN SEWER MH``'
R TOP -377.78
u i INV IN (NORTH).}69.83
\TE ORurw E / INV IN (EAST) -370.58
r ,s?R INV OUT -369.76 _
S EXIST. 8" SAN
Zl _ SE. R
I -7
lRIVATE 1.RAIFIAG�
zot�i� Pc tis
� EwsT. IIHEADW �L / I / I 1 11 I / rL
I 1
-N1
SECLrrNDRv REE
NSE�`/ATJJ N f .
iNATCCCCCC CPLIANCQM$ �014�651 /I
NETE)E Y D / I
/41 ) , \
(if1�''/ 11\
/I /9
/
OUT }69.99 1 ' 6 a0 `\ \ \� / i i // 11y \�\�,,--',,__-�,,�'� ' ' �:� /�, �,✓I' A //� ' �/��l r ��`j�� � •�'�%i %� •_� . __ ��-
�° _ v vvY / / /111 v�-�_-.� ./ . '�,,.''�' �'' A' 1'�,/ ii „✓ / �l vq � � i/ / ' � A ✓ �
\ ^ \ /EXIST. SAN SEWER MW
TOP=359.18
\ / \\\ ' / ',',/ MHy/
p , I I INV IN 9}
(NORTH) -}51.
\ I �.jINV IN (EAST)
=351.93
INV OUT=349.56 S/e
EXIST CB PRIMARY TREE CONSERVATION
TOP -368.75A" /� I AREA -ZONE 2 NEUSE BUFFER
Nv IN.363.55 / / / / �' / / o / X
\ \ 4 / ' i h / / 8M 2014 PC 155 f
NV OUT -367.45 / WITHIN RECORDED SAN SEWER 9
I
EASEMENT)q.
/ /
20' CITY OF RALEIGH
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT BM2005,
PG539
EXIST CB
TOP -365.18
INV IN -358.82
INV OUT=358.68
EXIST. SAN SEWER MH
INV -348.25
/ P /
EXIST CB
TOP -364.74
INV OUT -360.10
' 4 '
/ /
B•
20' PTY OF RALEIGH
SANITARY SEWER
EASEMENT BM2005,
/
• ,
R/F
ALEXANDER GROUP LLC
DB 12727, PG 972
BM 2006, PG. 407
PIN: 0768.01-49-4970
EXIST. CONDITIONS/DEMOLITION NOTES
1. ALL MATERIALS AND METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE 'NTH
THE CITY OF RALEIGH AND THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA STANDMDS AND
SPEpFlCARONS.
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE NORTH CAROLINA ONE CALL (1-800-632-4949)
LOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. PLD
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES
ENGINEERAND NOTIFY THE OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS PRIOR TO
BEGINNING CONSTRUCTIONPIEDMONT LAND DESIGN, LLP
4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING OR RELOCATING ALL UTILITIES IN
CONFLICT WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH UTILITY 8522-204 SIX FORKS ROAD
COMPANIES. RALEIGH, NORM CAROLINA 27615
919 845 7600 PHONE
5. ALL TREE PROTECTION FENCE AND SILT FENCE WITH TREE PROTECTION SIGNAGE 919,645,7703 FAX
SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO BEGINNING DEMOLITION.
6. INVERTS ON EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE LABELED 'INACCESSIBLE'
WERE OBTAINED FROM APPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE CONSRUCTION DRAWINGS PREPARED
BY JOHN A. EDWARDS AND COMPANY FOR TW ALEXANDER PLACE SUBDINSION
(S-12-12 - DATED APRIL 2013). CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE MANHOLE COVER
AN VERIFY INVERTS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER
OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS.
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
Q
W Z
J
o0
J <L
�
2
W Z) I.L.
W Z
U=
m U
O J
a Lo
U Ir .7-1
ISSUED: PROGRESS
REVISIONS:
DRAWN BY: MGD
CHECKED BY: JDL
PROJECT: CVBC
12
NORTH LOT
EXISTING
0 40 Bo 120 CONDITIONS PLAN
SCALE IN FEET: 1" = 40• �3
DWG. NO. PA.L

E
o
9i EXIST. HEADWALL
II^----- / TOP=367.20' TOP -38485'
I I
EXIST. WATER
/ / INV. INV=357,47' INV IN EAST -
I I _ / BACK WATER "'/ / /! / / I _ c- _ (--)-379.2{ --- -_i
_ DRAINAGE i(1 1 //� / EXIST. CB _ ___ INV IN(SOUTH)-379.28'
\' EASEMENT ♦ l ��/
TOP -381,07' -�Y=39,0_
/ ' ELEV.=368.5 -_ INV IN=3J5.77' _
J
/
/ / ti
U LE CBEw
t
ST.
/
TOP]6.7 fi• -� Yje�-TOP.
36].46' YINV
0
��?•'__�
wU
INV 0
I
�pJ
-
EXIST. SM
TOP=377.]8 ^ �4?
/ n
129V INV IN (EA 7)(NOM'370.587
IT(�$pyWp
;moi
I
INV OUT=369-76"Xtl-+5_ --
INV 0
ze'
EXIST
'E%IST. 6' thN SEWE$-1.VV` -NL= �/1FVVLI- : 1'I I ' 'TOP=3681
/f (PFR- IGN PLAN55y' _ AVENUE O -LANE. DrgDED II N INV. IN=S
E% SS CLEANOUT VARIABLL�A'I`DTH R.OA- OUT
�A- TOP -77
\ '
__`b.\ t{ IST. CB .. ._\.
E%1ST.—
r \TOP
3
\-31]
)NV.
` )NV. OUT -368.6Q',. `fb
' \..... _. II
P `
\
\
t
\
E%IS . C
TOP=394. \
INV I1=380. 6' `
\INV OUT=388.12' `
I
\
\
I
_ 8]' 13 35'E __ IPS "-'_ - .• _ a __ �� ------ --
� S'I'T /
- --_______ - - .mss _ _ -HXD IIPS`
_ _-�- ��--- T J /
__gp26iABANDONNFD)-- - '-- ---_____"---- /
f --- -t-_______ -____---'—___ __-_ _ - --_-- -----_ -
QP /
RIP � AP I
�Z�/
APRO _-_
N _ 1 1
I -
Q III
TE gRAI El I '//
�ASEIGENy / If \� II ¢ I �/ I l / l / l / l l l / / I l / \\
PCI 155 I / Vit/ / I 'N I
F X11 �LEUSE IPAf/�,IAN IBUFfER \ ,., I l 1 I l l l l!/ l I l l I R l l I I \ \ \\\ \\
w 1 50'1 EAGN S'VE MEA�UFED .Y I 1 I C , l l/ I I/ .i9.''
P h
FROM TOP F BANK
I , I\ I I I l , I l l l l l 1 1
100 R kL00LVPLAIN l I' I I I I ! , l I \ ('�T'8 7 [
{'/ 1 BOUND Ry
bER'CITY OF \ / 1 1 1 I l , , l I l l / 17 \ LV(1 CA �f±I1 '7�
/ \ }
/ I RPgEiG APbft0 0 / I I ^ II 3\2 0r�6 L\ I' r-
/ FLQIOD S. 4
F PR�MAR RfiE I 1 `6 EQ043 Al
/ 1 I t ' 1 I II I
i"fONSER�ATION
AREA ZONE 2 I I I // / \ 1 1 1 I
W / NEUSE7BUFFER I ) !/I B). ���� i i - -�� I II 11j1 IIII
(.L BV' 2014 PG 15� / I I I I I/ V I\ , t / 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 \ ' - 1 11 11
/ 1 I v // A I I 1 1 1 v v1. I
wI �-''----'-"----�-
--/-'' , •\�-�4+R?F1+1"° ` /
I ;� I 1 I I I 1 1 - I I 1 1 � 11(�.�.' II"i III Iljl I -n r
W % '//''/-� ! ! l� \I 11'J ,�_ l� I I I 1 1 1 1 d I 1 1 ' , 1 1 I \- - -- _/'i'�'r <_!''y��'!=s j_���'_- i. I1// l�'/I IIII
I1\\r I I,
1 \ I / 111 II j, E
//, I 1 \ -//'`PROPERtt /�'J' l T I
-�� l / /'/ /r I \ \ _� \/ I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1\ ' t `= /''-', /� '' _�
Ell _ / I r/ / '/ I
x ' // �_ �i \ ' 1 1 1 1 \ 1 1 1 _ �s / Too- - '
/LrT�- '�/ I \T \\t 1\ /'//'/ '��//�^ II m
i l' II WETLANDS AC. 'I II
696 SF 0.0160 AC.3)
It
i / II
/ \ ECt1' ARI'�EEI
(/ I N E A ON AREA
I I/ / / / ,� / 1! ♦/' `pLT RN TE\ C MF`LI CE\ 65' \1 3:`._.� t -�\\\ _\...i /, /r�/� r' %r/ / i1
§ 4 ARI o�-/'� / ff r / �0' CITY OF RALEIG
/ P ET YAR \
I \ \ P SANITARY SEWER
0M \204 G�55 Z EASEMENT
\ /// BM2005, PG539
I ill �/- 111 f _--------' _ Y -
�,
/ PRIMPAY TREE / 4� /
_-_ 1 / 1-.-i _ _ CONSERVATION AREA - 4,
i- \ -� -, _ ' / / / ZONE 2 NEUSE BUFFER/ y/
000,
BM 2016 PG 155 / ?/
q Ip I-
NEURx"mlysr6UF ER
—/�' EAC E MEOSURED_
FRO OP OF 87CNKi
SSIJH
ALEXANDER GROUP LLC - - -
/ D8 12727, PG 972
/ ' \ ✓ / BM 2006. PG. 407 - - -
PIN: 0768.01-49-4970 SSMH
/ INv u
ILL
II'
rr
I
/ / I
1 I l
E / !
1
F iE%IST.
48' RCP
X46.32 / I
N 378.74 � I
OUT 3]8.54
IT. SAN SEWER N i
'-398.2]'
DUT=385.87'
iT.
DWALL
-}81.48
.
376.8a
I
I
II
I/
NORTH
o ao 60 ,zo
SCALE IN FEET: 1" = 40'
PLD
PIEDMONT LAND DESIGN, LLP
8522-204 SIX FORKS ROAD
RALEK,'li, NORTH CAROLINA 27615
919.845.7600 PHONE
919.845.7703 FAX
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
\W Q
W � Z
J w<
_1 Z U
W w w
�Q J O
LL
m ~
Q � W
J
U °rte°
ISSUED: PROGRESS
REVISIONS:
DRAWN BY: MGD
CHECKED BY: JDL
PROJECT: CVBC
LOT 8
EXISTING
CONDITIONS PLAN
DWG. No. PA.3

LEGEND IMPACT QUANTITIES
IMPACT #1A = IMPACTS FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION
BUFFER ZONE 1 ZONE 1 IMPACT FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION = 4,048 SF
ZONE 2 IMPACT FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION = 2,827 SF
TOTAL IMPACT FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION = 6,875 SF o�
M -
IMPACT #1B = IMPACTS FOR BYPASS CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION
BUFFER ZONE 2 ZONE 1 IMPACT FOR BYPASS CHANNELS = 285 SF ! / ! // �� ��, I \\� \\ \ 1 I I I I I I 1
ZONE 2 IMPACT FOR BYPASS CHANNELS = 116 SF I ///// "I 1 I J \ 1 I I I I I i I I 1 11 Piedmont LandDesigl LLP
PID -
TOTAL IMPACT FOR BYPASS CHANNELS = 401 SF / / / �1 , \ \ I I I 1 f I I
\/ 1 i \ i I i i I I I I I 8522-204 Si% Forks Road Raleig6,NC 27615
11 Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
372 I
HIGH FLOW I LCT 8 �P ASS T1
BYPASS\ CHANNEL T4W. Al�EXAN S P A E II II I I
6.20 A +I
' / I
/ // � l ,l /l /� // •� / // / // �� �//� / / ,/ � � �� //1 II \ --� � \ 1\
NEW 5'VIDE CONC. �IDEWALKII II II II II
370 NEI COt�C. ETAIIING WALy 1 1 1 1
\(TY . BO111H S DES I OF 1DRIVEWA�) I 1
/ / \ •��
NEW \gONdRET BOTT04LES1 1 1 1 1 1 z
C t1ERT 1�IITH RIP RAPT AP�ON \ 1 1 1
/ J6J l / / / / / ✓ \ \ EX ENDING TO OP 1 OF (3AN4�. 1 1 1 W J
ST VM SHALL OTI BE 1 1 1 1 1 1 (� 0
\DIS RB D. I I 1 1 v
68 / / / / \ \ \ i 1 I I I 1 0�
_! < U
01
01 f
of•--�1 v00
m z
LL, w _ \ \ \ \ 1 \ U =
03
_ Q Lij
�w- 1 / I \\ \\ \\ \\ \� \�—�\��\ O J
�LO
6 o w
N N I IMPACT #1 \\ \ \ \ T�-c- T� Q
HIGH FLOW
BYPASS CHANNEL'
100 EAR F \
LOODPLAIN �
` \ BOUNDARY.PF TY OF RALEIG14,
IV,\ \ �` \ APPROVED FLOOD S DY #348
• / � / / � / / / ! // / � /� / ��a�.\ � �� � � � � � \� PROJECT:
CVBGRJTR
DATE:
NORTH 05 JAN 2017
SCALE:
0 30 60 90 I 30
/// SCALE IN FEET DWG. # IM.2

i II I 1 I 1
I 1 1
f IGH �I OW BY�ASSI CHANNE
1 1 1
-LEtLL SPRDER\ 11 11 1
11 1 11
n1r�u �nni�o r o'nTrn�n r�c
M
I
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
1
1
BYPASS �HA14�EL\\
ADER
T
SCALE IN FEET
PLD
Piedmont Land Design, LLP
8522-204 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27615
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
i
II
W
C�
J
O
J
o
Q
J
<
U
>
2
w
ct
U
OO
p
mz
�
U
U
=
c
O
w
J
Q
LO
—PROPOSED
GRADE
364
F
364
/
NNI
NEW BOTTOMLESS
CO
C. ARCH
360
STREAM CROSSING.
op
360
356
IGRAN
356
�I
352
352
SCALE IN FEET
PLD
Piedmont Land Design, LLP
8522-204 Six Forks Road Raleigh, NC 27615
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]
i
II
W
C�
J
O
J
o
Q
J
<
U
>
2
w
ct
U
OO
p
mz
�
U
U
=
c
O
w
J
Q
LO
PROJECT:
GVBGRJTR
DATE:
05 JAN 201-7
SCALE:
111=50'
DWG. # IM.3