Loading...
1036-91 ASP - Cassils Road.~..~ -- County of Newell No. 4 By-law No. 1036-91 .- A By-law of the County of Newell No. 4 in the Province of Alberta to adopt the "Cassils Road Area Structure Plan". Whereas Council proposes to establish a framework for the orderly __ subdivision and development of the 64.3 hectares in the SE 6-19-1~ in the County of Newell, immediately west of the Town of Brooks north of Cassils Road And Whereas this plan will identify existing development and will outline the procedures and conditions under which future subdivis and development will be allowed to proceed. The Area Structure Plan will establish the County of Newell's planning policies for this area which will be used by the land owners as well as other government and municipal agencies and utility companies in the formulation of their plans and priorities for development. Therefore be it resolved that this By-law receive first reading and that the necessary Public Hearing be held to hear comments on this Plan Further be it resolved that this By-law receive second and final reading after the Public Hearing and that this By-law take effect on final passing of the By-law. Dated at Brooks, Alberta this 6th day of June, 1991. June 6, 1991 Moved by Councillor Wells that By-law 1036-91 receive first readi Carried. June 20, 1991 Moved by Councillor Bulger that By-law 1036-91 receive second reading. Carried Unanimously. June 20, 1991 Moved by Councillor Nelson that By-law 1036-91 receive third and final reading. Carried Unanimously. Dated at Brooks, Alberta this 20th day of June, 1991. REEVE ~~ ~~:..~ ~! COUNTY ADM STRAT6R ~~ v I ~ ~ ~r ~~ ~,v~ ~ 3~ County of Newell Cassils Road Area Structure Plan By -law No. 1036 -91 Adopted: June 20, 1991 Prepared by the Staff of the Southeast Alberta Regional Planning Commission June 6, 1991 June 20, 1991 June 20, 1991 County of Newell No. 4 By -law No. 1036 -91 A By -law of the County of Newell No. 4 in the Province of Alberta to adopt the "Cassils Road Area Structure Plan Whereas Council proposes to establish a framework for the orderly subdivision and development of the 64.3 hectares in the SE 6- 19 -14 -4 in the County of Newell, immediately west of the Town of Brooks north of Cassils Road And Whereas this plan will identify existing development and will outline the procedures and conditions under which future subdivision and development will be allowed to proceed. The Area Structure Plan will establish the County of Newell's planning policies for this area which will be used by the land owners as well as other government and municipal agencies and utility companies in the formulation of their plans and priorities for development. Therefore be it resolved that this By -law receive first reading" and that the necessary Public Hearing be held to hear comments on this Plan Further be it resolved that this By -law receive second and final reading after the Public Hearing and that this By -law take effect on final passing of the By -law. Dated at Brooks, Alberta this 6th day of June, 1991. Moved by Councillor Wells that By -law 1036 -91 receive first reading. Carried. Moved by Councillor Bulger that By -law 1036 -91 receive second reading. Carried Unanimously. Moved by Councillor Nelson that By -law 1036 -91 receive third and final reading. Carried Unanimously. Dated at Brooks, Alberta this 20th day of June, 1991. REEVE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR County of Newell No. 4 By -law No. 1128 -95 A By -law of the County of Newell No. 4, in the Province of Alberta, to amend the Cassils Road Area Structure Plan, By -law 1036-91. Whereas County Council feels that amendments to the Cassils Road Area Structure Plan are required to accommodate current development proposals; And Whereas County Council has advertised these proposed amendments by Public Notice, And Whereas a Public Hearing will be held on June 8, 1995 to hear any concerns regarding these proposed amendments, Therefore be it resolved that the following amendments be made to By -law 1036.91, being the Cassils Road Area Structure Plan: 1. That the text within the section entitled "Phase II" on Page 15 of the Area Structure Plan be deleted and replaced with the following text: "The second phase of development should be allowed to commence when it is demonstrated that there is sufficient demand for additional lots. At this stage, additional acreage lots will be developed as an expansion of Westland Acres, to the north and west. This will involve the extension of roads into the area immediately west of Westland Acres, and the creation of 20 to 25 additional lots (see Figure 8). As this expansion occurs, additional access into this area must be provided. The road connecting the Westland Acres development with the service road to the south, parallel to Cassils Road, will be required as a condition of approval for any expansion of Westland Acres west of this connecting road. In Phase 11, the ultimate level of development should be in the order of 50 to 60 Lots. As in Phase I, the location of existing buildings and developments must be addressed. Similarly, as lots are subdivided and developed, the potential re- subdivision of these lots into 15 to 17 metre wide urban type Tots must be taken into consideration. This means that new lots should have frontages of multiples of 15-17 metres. These Tots will not be serviced by a water system or sewer system. Even though the Tots should meet the Land Use By -law minimum size requirement of 0.5 hectares, and must be at least 0.20 hectares to meet the Subdivision Regulations for unserviced lots, the increasing numbers and density of private sewage disposal systems raises environmental concerns. As a result, prior to subdivision approval in this phase, any developer shall provide satisfactory percolation and ground water tests and any other required engineering information to the County, Provincial Plumbing Inspector and the Subdivision Approving Authority." 2. That Schedule "A" of this amending By -law shall replace Figure 8, on Page 16 of the Cassils Road Area Structure Plan. 3. That the text within the section entitled "Future Phases" on Page 17 of the Area Structure Plan be deleted and replaced with the following text: "Subdivision and development beyond Phase II are outside the scope of this Area Structure Plan as these developments are more urban than rural in nature. However, provisions for future development have been taken into account in this plan. Phase III would be the re- subdivision of lots into smaller urban sized lots. This phase of development can only proceed with the installation of a municipal water and sewer system, and will not occur until this area is annexed by the Town of Brooks. Planning beyond Phase II will have to be done as the demand warrants and will require engineering studies and a new Area Structure Plan." 4. That the text within the section entitled "9. Subdivision and Development Guidelines" on Page 18 of the Area Structure Plan be deleted and replaced with the following text: "To ensure that the subdivision and development of lots during the first two phases of this plan do not prejudice future re- subdivision of the land in this area, the following guidelines shall be used in controlling subdivision and regulating development: All subdivisions shall be in accordance with this plan; The exact locations of all buildings and developments will be required to ensure proper planning of all lots; Prior to subdivision approval, applicants will be required to provide information on the utility services to be used; Percolation and ground water testing, satisfying the requirements of the Provincial Plumbing Inspector, will be required prior to subdivision approval; All lots created in Phase I and II must have a minimum frontage of 30 metres and a minimum area of 0.50 hectares, wherever possible; The design of all new lots must take into account the future urban use of this area and, therefore, these lots should be multiples of 15 to 17 metres in width; All new development shall comply with the following minimum set -back requirements: Front Set -back 7.5 metres Side Set -back 1.5 metres unless otherwise approved by the Municipal Planning Commission." Moved by Councillor Daniels that By -law 1128 -95 receive first reading. Carried. Moved by Councillor Barg that By -law 1128.95 receive second reading. Carried. Moved by Councillor Douglass that By -law 1128 -95 receive third and final reading. Carried. REEVE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR d td 4 o t� O v> N o O I I tri CD D o O n U") Sv c n c 1 CD 0 0 0 ACCESS STREET IN PHASE II 0 0 0 O ROADWAY (12th Sheet) 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90 m Marshal Drarn t:111 R 411•11111M ,11 /11114111411411144442•441143111114001144141110411 May 11, 1995 June 8, 1995 June 22, 1995 County of Newell No. 4 By -law No. 1130 -95 A By -law of the County of Newell No. 4, in the Province of Alberta, to amend Land Use By -law 1004.90 Whereas County Council is amending the Cassils Road Area Structure Plan to provide for additional country residential development, And Whereas the Land Use By -law must be amended to allow for this additional development, And Whereas County Council has advertised this proposed amendment by Public Notice, And Whereas a Public Hearing will be held on June 8, 1995 to hear any concerns regarding this proposed amendment, Therefore be it resolved that the following amendment be made to By -law 1004 -90: That the portion of the SE 6-19-14-4, indicated as Phase II in the Cassils Road Area Structure Plan, be included in a Country Residential District of the Land Use By -law. Moved by Councillor Stobbs that By -law 1130 -95 receive first reading. Carried. Moved by Councillor Douglass that By -law 1130-95 receive second reading. Carried. Moved by Councillor Loewen that By -law 1130-95 receive third and final reading. Carried. REEVE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1. Introduction 1 2. Purpose of the Plan 2 3. The Site 4 4. Existing Land Use and Development 8 5. Ownership 11 6. Planning Constraints 13 7. Development Concept 14 8. Development Phases Phase I 17 Phase II 20 Phase III 22 Phase IV 26 Future Phases 30 9. Subdivision and Development Guidelines 31 10. Implementation 32 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 REGIONAL SETTING 3 Figure 2 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH Figure 3 PLAN AREA BOUNDARIES 7 Figure 4 TOPOGRAPHY 9 Figure 5 EXISTING LAND USE DEVELOPMENT 10 Figure 6 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 16 Figure 7 PHASE I, SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 19 Figure 8 PHASE II, SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT 21 Figure 9 SETBACK REQUIREMENTS 28 Figure 10 PHASE III IV, SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT 29 CONCEPT 1. INTRODUCTION CASSILS ROAD AREA STRUCTURE PLAN AMENDMENT The area of land west to the Town of Brooks along Cassils Road has been subject of considerable discussion and development pressures over the past number of years. The location of this site introduces some unique planning problems. To begin with, the area lies within a rural municipality therefore, all subdivision and development must be rural in nature and in accordance with the County's Land Use Bylaw. This, by itself, is not a problem. The problem is that this area has been identified as a future growth area for the Town of Brooks and could ultimately become urban development. As a result, it is imperative that any activity that occurs in this area must be planned in a manner that will not prevent its conversion to urban development in the future. In 1989 the County of Newell requested the staff of the Southeast Alberta Regional Planning Commission to prepare an Area Structure Plan for this location. A Draft plan was prepared, circulated and a public meeting was held. This plan is the culmination of the comments and suggestions received from this circulation process. In 1995, an amendment was made to the Cassils Road Area Structure Plan. This amendment made text changes to the original document regarding the first and second phase of development in this area and was adopted as By -law No. 1128 -95 In 2000, UMA Engineering Ltd., on behalf of Cecil Blair, provided this amendment to the original Cassils Road Area Structure Plan from 1991. Development pressures in this area have resulted in the need to add the successive development Phases III and IV. These phases, in various stages of detail, can ultimately provide for the logical sequence of subdivision and full build out of the quarter section in which they are contained. 2. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN This Area Structure Plan is intended to establish a framework for the orderly subdivision and development of the 64.3 hectares in the SE 1/4 Sec 6, Twp 19, Rge 14 W 4th in the County of Newell, immediately west of the Town of Brooks north of Cassils Road. (see Figure 1) This plan will identify existing development and will outline the procedures and conditions under which the future subdivision and development will be allowed to proceed. The Area Structure Plan will establish the County of Newell's planning policies for this area which will be used by the land owners as well as other govemment and municipal agencies and utility companies in the formulation of their plans and priorities for development. It must be pointed out that this Area Structure Plan provides the opportunity and direction for the land owners in this area to subdivide and develop their lands, but it can not and will not force them to participate should they choose not to develop. This plan, prepared for the County, provides a framework for a subdivision and development scheme, but it will be up to the landowners to obtain the necessary agreements between themselves and the appropriate agencies to implement this scheme. REGIONAL SETTING Cassils Road Area Structure Plan 1 3. THE SITE The lands included in this Area Structure Plan are shown in Figure 2. The study area contains 64.3 hectares of land Tying in the SE 1/4 Section 6, Twp. 19, Rge 14, W 4th, north of Cassils Road. Figure 3 shows the general topography of the site which is relatively flat, having only a 3 metre elevation difference across the site. The land slopes gently from west to east with several lower areas along the eastern edge of the site. These slight depressions should not pose any problems for the development of this site, but will have to be taken into account as the area develops. Due to the relative flatness of the topography of this site and the surrounding area, detailed engineering studies will likely be required if this area is to be connected to the Town of Brooks utility system. The soils in the area are of the brown soils group and portions of the site have good agricultural capabilities when irrigated. The Canada Land Inventory classification rates the largest portion of the study area as class 2t soil, while the north east corner (approximately 1/3) is class 3t. Class 2 and 3 soils are considered better agricultural soils, and non agricultural developments are discouraged. However, because portions of the site included in Phases I and II have been disturbed as a result of subdivision and development, the agricultural viability of those portions of the site has been greatly reduced. Until such time as lands to the north are redeveloped, agricultural practices may continue. The remainder of the site to the north has not presently been disturbed in terms of development, but portions are being used for animal grazing as the only form of agriculture on the site. Two lots remain unsold in the recently developed Phase II of this Area Structure Plan, therefore putting development pressure on the remaining lands to be subdivided. Future development of this quarter section would logically follow as the next phase of development and Phase III, immediately north of Phase I and II, could be an acceptable area as the next phase. (see Figure 9) Although the soils in this area are good agricultural soils, there are various reasons why this property should be redesignated to residential uses. Fragmentation of the land in this area has already occurred with the residential development to the south and the east of the property. This fragmentation has resulted in a small site, which would limit the agricultural production at this location. The site is also situated within the Urban Fringe area of the Town of Brooks and will possibly be annexed in the future as the Town's boundary expands. The R238# 4 expansion of the Town will result in an uncertain future for agricultural uses on this site. The final reason to consider residential development on the subject site is that the original Cassils Road Area Structure Plan has identified the remainder of the quarter section as future residential uses. This legislation was the first step to indicate the future of this site and this amendment is in keeping with the intentions of the original Cassils Road Area Structure Plan. -t 111..11)(1111 I1..II (k /..1�l: ma st p .is !IF /I BI.:1 /B .111: f I° 45( near ffifirsaist 41: src71 7B) 7 1 SE Sect. 6 Twp. 19 Rge. 14 The information on this map is Copyright 1999, The Board of Directors of the Eastern Irrigation District. All rights reserved. Scale 1:4,000 W E Map Produced By: Mark Porter March 25, 1999 Eastern Irrigation District Figure 2 1 (SE 6- 19 -14-W 4th) 1 -i r r 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 dim IN 101 1 1 1 r PLAN AREA BOUNDARIES CASSILS ROAD Cassils Road Area Structure Plan TOWN OF BROOKS_ llll 7 1111111 IIIII11 1 1 11111111 I m pl aui ll1111111111 Figure 3 4. EXISTING LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT Since the 1960's there have been 13 subdivision applications that have resulted in the creation of the existing parcels. Figure 4 shows the approximate locations of the existing developments. There are currently 15 residences and associated buildings on some 18 parcels of land. In addition, there are the necessary gas and electric utilities to service these developments. The area is not serviced by a municipal water or sewer system. However, some of the residences receive domestic irrigation water from the irrigation canals that run through the area. Water for this location comes from the major E.I.D. canal that runs just north of this site. A small canal running north -south through the centre of the site delivers water to several smaller ditches, which in turn supply water to various lots. The delivery system through this area also carries irrigation water to the NW 31- 18- 14 -w4th, which has "first water rights As development occurs in the study area, irrigation water deliveries to this adjacent quarter will have to be maintained. The main access to the site is via Cassils Road (Secondary Highway #542) which extends westerly from the Town of Brooks and runs along its southern boundary. This well developed paved access to the Town has generated a demand for subdivision in this area, and this demand is expected to continue in the future. Secondary access to this site is from the north south road allowance (12th Street) which is located within the town boundaries. The northern portion of the site is currently being used for agricultural purposes, with the country residential developments located along Cassils Road and off of 12th Street (Westland Acres). The agricultural lands have irrigation water rights and are currently being irrigated and cultivated. Future development to the north of the existing development will maintain the water delivery system to the adjacent properties. As is the current practice, irrigation water from the irrigation canals that run through the area can be extended for the fringe development pending negotiations with the Eastern Irrigation District (E.I.D.). A 76u L---CASSILS ROAD -.760.4 N. N. N. ll 16. L 11 i7 P TOPOGRAPHY Cassils Road Area Structure Plan Figure 4 01 01 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 AGRICULTURE 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 I 0 2 v —4 N 1 w MAJOR ACTIVE CANAL (EI.D.) r 9 AGRICULTURE L —i CASSILS ROAD WATER DEUVERY TO NW' /4 31- 18-14 -W4th EXISTING LAND USE DEVELOPMENT Cassils Road Area Structure Plan 'IL t 1.1 t t /J4At t....t`t`"If EXISTING BUILDINGS TRANS ALTA ELECTRICAL LINES CWNG GAS LINES IRRIGATION CANALS I 1 1 �Q Figure 5 5. OWNERSHIP The present distributions of ownership in the study area. are summarized below and reflect the most recent subdivisions within the entire quarter section: Owner 1. Amos and Rhonda Volk 2. Brad and Janis Stolson 3 Frank Percival and Dimitrios Lazarakis 4. Ronald and Charlotte Langille 5. Lloyd and Mabel Woods 6. Tony and Patricia Schimmel 7. Roger and Agnes Raimbault 8. Wayne and Diane Mackinnon 9. James and Christine Brack 10. Bettina Stafford 11. John Thomson 12. Glen and Muriel Nelson 13. Thomas and Judy Arik 14. Robert Hiebert 15. Rennie Arndt and Freda Fullerton 16. Nicholas and Vionne Salonka 17. James and Christine Blair 18. Richard and Louanne Crawford 19. Harold and Merle Prentice 20. Grant and Donna McNaughton 21. Keith and James Kress 22. Dale and Deborah Heidmiller 23. Richard and Shelly Deunk 24. James and Tammy Cyr 25. Jan and Renate Dykstra 26. Douglas and Rainey Angela Felker 27. Theodore and Dorothy Schmidt 28. Peter and Michelle Thomas 29. Jody Sewall R238# 11 Hectares 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.139 0.211 0.879 0.879 1.460 0.552 1.660 1.460 0.552 1.450 1.460 1.450 20.190 16.738 0.208 0.208 0.186 0.186 0.152 0.152 0.200 0.400 0.200 0.400 0.200 0.200 30. Ivan and Sylvia Mitchell 0.200 31. William and Caroline Rettie 0.200 32. Scott Hanson 0.200 33. John and Brigitte Gerrard 0.200 34. Kristjan and Linda Austman 0.200 35. James and Barbara Laychuk 0.200 36. William and Mabel Rooke 0.336 37. John and Valerie Deunk 0.330 38. Daryle and Edith Fox 0.200 39. Shawn and Sherrie Schuh 0.220 40. Kasy and Francis Kaczanowski 0.190 41. Michael and Susan Ondrus 0.200 42. Joseph and Beverly Bickley 0.200 43. CLB Holdings 0.200 44. Lawrence and Elizabeth Dunne 0.200 45. Brian and Shauna Mokelky 0.200 46. John and Dorothy Mokelky 0.200 47. Willy Abbuhl Koller et al. 2.020 48. Edward and Connie Lukye 1.409 49. Darcy and Lisa Dyck 0.139 50. Nicholas and Cindy Brkich 0.145 51. Darren and Cheryl Cockerill 0.164 52. Colleen and Keith Davidson 0.176 53. Robert and Barbara Medway 0.186 54. David and Barbara Penner 0.279 55. Larry and Shelley Janke 0.179 56. Leighton and Lilianne Smith 0.164 57. Lee Ann Woods 0.167 Total 60.893 R238# 12 6. PLANNING CONSTRAINTS There are a number of planning considerations that must be taken into account in the process of developing this area. These include: 1. the land is owned by a number of individuals; 2. the location of existing residences, buildings and trees; 3. the existing irrigation canals and drainage ditches, as well as the existing utility infrastructure and rights of way; 4. the topography of the site may affect the location of gravity sewage and surface drainage and may require special engineering; 5. the access onto the existing road system needs to be controlled; 6. percolation and ground water tests must be conducted to ensure that the development of private sewage disposal systems does not create environmental problems. 7. the subdivision and development of this area must accommodate larger unserviced rural Tots in the initial phases, which can be converted to serviced urban lots at a later date should they be annexed into the Town of Brooks. 8. that setback distances from Lakeside Feeders feedlot operation to the northwest restricting residential development are adhered to. R238# 13 7. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT After taking into consideration the existing land use, the site characteristics and constraints, the development concept shown in Figure 6 was created. The quarter south of Cassils Road was originally included in this concept. However, after discussions with the land owners who indicated they were not interested in developing their land for residential purposes at this time, it was decided to eliminate that quarter from the plan. At some point in the future when the owners of this quarter are ready to proceed with a development scheme, an area structure plan outlining their proposal will be required. The concept provides for phased residential development on the larger lots along Cassils Road and the expansion of the residential area off of 12th Street (Westland Acres). The overall planned density of Phases I II average 0.45 hectares (1.11 acres) per lot, with no individual lot being Tess than 0.20 hectares (0.50acres) in size. Lots of this size are required to accommodate individual water and sewage systems. The concept shows future road rights of way that will be necessary to service the entire area. The location of these roads will allow the first phase of development to proceed and establish linkages to future phases. The exact alignment of these roads will have to be worked out when detailed designs for these areas are being considered. The service road along Cassils Road will be used to control traffic onto this important Secondary Highway. To provide for a safe road network, access points onto Cassils Road show spacing at a minimum distance of 200 metres. In addition, to ensure a safer intersection at 12th and Cassils Road, the service road should end with a cul -de -sac thus eliminating an additional entrance. Parks were required to meet the public reserve requirement and to meet the needs of the residents. As the first phases of development beyond Phase II, a total of 5.17 hectares of public reserve had to be provided. In accordance with the County -Town Urban Fringe Agreement, all reserve required in Phases I II were deferred. This policy was followed where the land being subdivided was part of the larger block onto which the reserve was deferred. However, when the existing lots along Cassils were subdivided, money in place of reserve was set aside to purchase the additional amounts of reserve required to account for their portions of the reserve allocation. At this point in time, it is not envisioned that any reserve areas in the site will be required for school purposes. However, as this area and the surrounding areas develop this requirement can be looked at again. R238# 14 The concept also shows a buffer /utility right -of -way along 12th Street to accommodate an existing gas line. This strip of land could be converted to residential use if the land owners enter into negotiations with the utility company and have the line moved. It should be noted that all buildings shown on the attached maps were located from aerial photography and are approximate locations used for illustrative purposes only. Prior to subdivision of any lots containing existing development, detailed location plans will be required from the applicant. R238# 15 DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PHASE 1 2 4 ACCESS POINT PROPOSED ROAD O PARK LOCATION :a\ BUFFER /UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY Cassils Road Area Structure Plan 6 8. DEVELOPMENT PHASES Phase I In Phase I of the plan (see Figure 7), the existing larger parcels fronting onto Cassils Road may be allowed to be subdivided once, creating lots with a minimum of at least 30 metre (±98 foot) frontages. All these lots front onto the service road which will control access onto Cassils Road. In this phase, the area adjacent to the 6 lots in Westland Acres will also be permitted to be subdivided to take advantage of the existing road and services that were installed at the time the initial lots were established. In Phase I, all subdivision and development must occur in a way that will not prejudice development of future phases. Lots will be required to have a minimum frontage of 30 metres (±98 feet) and a minimum area of 0.2 hectares (±0.50 acres) to ensure compliance with the subdivision and plumbing regulation standard to accommodate private water and sewer systems. Buildings should be located towards one side of the lot in anticipation of future subdivisions. The width of lots should be such that future phases can be re- subdivided into urban sized lots with widths in the range of 15 to 16 metres (±49.21 to 52.49 feet). It should be noted that the existing lots in Westland Acres are less than the required 0.2ha (±0.50 acre) size. Due to the limited depths of these lots, and in keeping with the existing subdivision, the County may consider recommending approval of smaller sized lots, if the developer can prove to the satisfaction of the Municipal Planning Commission and the Provincial Plumbing Inspector that smaller lots will be of sufficient size to accommodate private sewerage systems and will not negatively impact this or the adjacent areas. As subdivision and development occur in this phase, the total numbers of lots could reach 40. Currently, most of the existing lots are receiving domestic water from the Eastern Irrigation District via individual delivery points. As the numbers increase, the problems of water delivery also increase, and there is a point at which the Irrigation District will enforce their policy of requiring water for multi parcel subdivisions to be delivered to a single delivery point. Should this occur, the residents may be required to form a Water Co- operative, or some type of Water Users group, to acquire land for a larger reservoir and oversee the operate of some type of system. It is important to note that the responsibility for organizing and operating any water R238# 17 system will be up to the residents of this area, and the approval of all future subdivision and development applications may be dependent upon the establishment of such a system. R238# 18 1 SERVICE ROAD mod-- ACCESS POINT 1 CASSILS PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT KIA BUFFER /UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY ROAD min. 200 m 1 CC J 2 N CC 2 1 ,4 FUTURE ACCESS POINT TOTAL AREA: 22.9 ha NUMBER OF LOTS: 41 LOT SIZES: 0.20 ha to 1.0 ha Cassils Road Area Structure Plan Phase II (as amended by By -law 1128 -95) The second phase of development should be allowed to commence when it is demonstrated that there is sufficient demand for additional lots. At this stage, additional acreage Tots will be developed as an expansion to Westland Acres, to the north and the west. This will involve the extension of roads into the area immediately west of Westland Acres, and the creation of 20 to 25 additional Tots (see Figure 8). As this expansion occurs, additional access into the area must be provided. The road connecting the Westland Acres development with the service road to the south, parallel to Cassils Road, will be required as a condition of approval for any expansion of Westland Acres west of this connecting road. In Phase II, the ultimate level of development should be in order of 50 to 60 Tots. As in Phase I, the location of existing buildings and developments must be addressed. Similarly, as lots are subdivided and developed, the potential re- subdivision of these lots into 15 to 17 metre wide urban type lots must be taken into consideration. This means that new Tots should have frontages of multiples of 15 -17 metres. These Tots will not be serviced by a water system or sewer system. Even though the lots should meet the Land Use By -law minimum size requirement of 0.5 hectares, and must be at least 0.20 hectares to meet Subdivision Regulations for unserviced lots, the increasing numbers and density of private sewage disposal systems raises environmental concerns. As a result, prior to subdivision approval in this phase, any developer shall provide satisfactory percolation and ground water tests and any other required engineering information to the County, Provincial Plumbing Inspector and the Subdivision Approving Authority. R238# 20 0 0 10 0 I0 0O I I Schedule "A" CASSIS ROW Serra Rood o O PHASE II SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT E 0 v. Expansion of Westland Acres 23 lots Lot Size 0.2 ha to 0.7 ha 0 N Figure 8 FRAM b 2 i 1 1 1 AA.F Cassiis Road Area Sfruclure Pl an _.__...,_`k !"9 l+,'; Phase III The lands within Phase III are included in the Area Structure Plan Amendment and consist of +4.33hectares (±10.70acres) as shown in Figure 10. This area, also referred to as the Westland Acres Expansion Area, is situated north of the existing development (Westland Acres) within the SE 1/4 Section 6, Twp 19, Rge 14, w 4th. This parcel of land is owned by James Cecil Blair and Christine Mary Blair who live in the north central portion of this Area Structure Plan. Phase III will be designed to accommodate eighteen 0.20 hectare (0.50 acre) country residential Tots. The main access to these eighteen lots will be off the 12th Street collector. It is proposed that the existing Schmidt Street be extended north to cross the site and to provide an access to future development to the north. Running along the eastern edge of the Blair property is an existing Canadian Western Natural Gas pipeline. This pipeline right -of -way will be maintained and a +25 -30 metre (±82-98 foot) buffer area will be provided as park space. The proposed design allows for a green buffer that runs in a north -south direction along the east side of the property and can be used as a park space and /or pathway along the 12th Street collector to connect to the green buffer of the existing development. Other utility rights of way exist on the Blair property which will also be used as green buffer areas between future development phases. Two other buffer areas run along the western edge and the northern edge of the proposed development and will connect to a future park to the north of the development. The park area included in the Land Use application for Phase III consists of ±0.49 hectares (±1.22 acres). This area will more than accommodate the required 10% municipal reserve dedication for this phase. The required municipal reserve for Phase III has been provided along the east boundary consisting of the gas right -of -way. The deferred reserve from the previous subdivision consists of 2.404 hectares (5.940 acres) and will be addressed in Phase IV. Phase IV of this Area Structure Plan will accommodate the deferred reserve as well as the required 10% for the remainder of the property.(see Table in Phase IV) The total reserve required for Phase IV will be accommodated within the proposed park situated approximately in the centre of the Blair property as well as along the gas right of way along the east border. The existing residents, being aware of the intentions of the original Cassils Road Area Structure Plan, will have the expansion lots backing onto their property. In terms of preserving the views for these existing residents, the proposed lots in the expansion area have been R238# 22 staggered and the proposed houses will not be in line with the existing residences thus maintaining the vistas between the buildings. Upon review, it was decided that a linear buffer between the existing properties and the proposed Tots (no. 2 to 9) would not serve to provide connections or linkages to any nearby paths or parks. However, cluster landscaping can be encouraged on the lots of the proposed expansion area to maintain vistas and provide desired privacy. A buffer along the north border of the expansion area will be provided and serve as a link to the proposed park. Keeping in mind the proximity of this site to the Town of Brooks boundary, it becomes important to consider the possible future annexation into the Town of Brooks and the conversion of this country residential development to a more urban development. This is achieved in an urban overlay of the proposed plan. (see Figure 10) This urban overlay scenario shows how the proposed country residential Tots can be further subdivided when municipal servicing is extended to this site. When purchasing these Tots, residents should be encouraged to consider the placement of their houses and the possibility of further subdivision. Positioning the homes to one side of the lot would allow for the ease of future subdivision and will be reviewed at the time of building permit. In keeping with the characteristics of the existing neighbourhood, the architectural controls of the existing development will be followed for this development. A geotechnical study has been conducted on this eighteen lot area in October of 1999. Eighteen test holes have been dug corresponding to the approximate location of each lot. The results from this geotechnical study indicate that a mound septic system will be the preferred option to service these future lots. The treatment mound septic system is similar to the subsurface disposal field method with the exception that it is above ground. Treatment mounds are used when the soil is impervious and /or when the water table is too high for the standard septic system. (see appended Geotechnical Study and the schematic representation of a mound system) It is not possible to determine the cumulative effects of the total amount of effluent being discharged by the existing and proposed developments prior to development, however if the mound treatment systems are constructed and maintained properly the impacts should be minimal. The treatment mounds proposed in this application will be constructed in strict accordance with the regulations set forth by Alberta Labour in the "Alberta Private Sewage Treatment and Disposal Regulations" and the "Canadian Plumbing Code 1990 Part 8 Private Sewage Treatment and Disposal The home owner will be responsible for the establishment and maintenance of their individual septic system. R238# 23 Concems of a high water table in this area and its affect on the development of the eighteen proposed Tots in the expansion area will be addressed through construction techniques such as the use of weeping tile and the avoidance of basement construction. Also, the use of a mound system which relies as much on evaporation as it does on percolation will be better than the use of a conventional septic system which relies only on percolation. The future affect that additional Tots may cause on the ground water table is impossible to determine at this time. Grading of the Phase III will allow the rear lot line elevations along the southern lots to match existing lot grades. Further details will be addressed at the detail design stage at which time grading will permit runoff towards the road to be in the gutters. At the time of subdivision, a lot grading plan will be prepared as a part of the application process. Development beyond the proposed 18 Tots will require further investigation into drainage issues. In terms of storm water management for the 18 Tots of the expansion area, both water quality and quantity design issues will comply in accordance with the Town of Brooks Storm Sewer Drainage Study. For the interim, runoff from the proposed development will be collected in the gutters in front of the Tots. The gutters will channel the runoff east near 12 Street and continue north to the proposed dugout. The catch basins and underground pipes will be used for the minor flow and swales and ditches will be used for the major overland flow. This dugout will act as a fire protection facility as well as a storm retention pond. Stormwater will route through the dugout and an outlet to One Tree Creek will be sized to restrict the outflow to pre development conditions. Details of the proposed facilities will be incorporated into the detailed design. Future development beyond these 18 lots will require further investigation into storm water management approaches. The water cisterns and the septic systems will be the responsibility of the homeowner. The developer will provide the proposed road. Access to Phase III will be via 12 Street, located to the east of the property. This present condition of this road will have to be determined by the Town of Brooks but is considered to be in a deteriorating state. The traffic generated by the proposed eighteen lots will have a very minimal affect on the condition of 12 Street due to the incidental increase in vehicular trips per day for 18 residential lots. The developer should not be responsible for the entire cost of any required upgrade due to minimal impact this subdivision will cause. However, at the time of future subdivision the upgrading of 12 Street as well as cost sharing issues will have to be addressed. R238# 24 All shallow utilities will be installed by their respective providers such as cable by Shaw Cable, Telus will provide phone service, Transalta will provide electricity, and Canadian Western will provide gas service. Municipal services such as fire protection, EMS, police, hospitals, sanitation etc. will be provided by the County of Newell No. 4 and /or the Town of Brooks. The Town of Brooks will likely annex the subject site at some time in the future, being located in an urban fringe area. At that time, all servicing will be provided by the Town of Brooks to include water and sewer. As a very rough estimate based on the availability of existing services near the site, providing municipal servicing to this site would cost in the area of $250,000. The issue of fire protection for this site, and any future development, will be addressed through the inclusion of a water dugout that will provide an area for a static water supply. This static water supply will supplement the nearest hydrant and the capacity of the pumper trucks. This Public Utility Lot will be situated within the central park planned just north of the expansion area and contain a minimum of 27,000 imperial gallons of water to meet the requirements of the NFPA 1231, Water Supplies for the Suburban and Rural Firefighting. This dugout will be sized to accommodate the fire protection requirements as well as stormwater runoff. Access to this dugout will be provided along the east border of lot 10 between it and the gas right of way. This access route at no time will be less than 6 metres (19.7 feet) in width and will provide access to the park site. This water facility will be constructed when the number of lots in this area reaches a threshold beyond which they can no longer be adequately serviced by the Brooks Fire Department. Being situated in the central park area, future expansion of this dugout can be easily accommodated if needed. The static water supply in the will be constructed by the developer. The maintenance of this water supply and the proposed open space in this development will be the responsibility of the developer until such time when a Home Owners or Residents Association is established. The homeowners association can be established prior to all the lots being sold and will assume the full responsibilities of future maintenance. R238# 25 Phase IV Phase IV of development refers to the lands north and west of the area outlined in Phase III. This phase of development is being recognized in this Area Structure Plan Amendment as an area for future development and to satisfy the amendment requirements. The full development of this phase would result in a build out of the above mentioned quarter section (see Figure 10). Phase IV encompasses the remainder of the Blair property and Salonka property and will not be considered for land use reclassification until market conditions demand further lots in this area. The proposed future layout for this final phase in the Cassils Road Area Structure Plan includes a collector road that projects from the northeast corner of the quarter section and runs in a southwest direction where it intersects Cassils Road along the western boundary of the site. The intersection of this proposed collector road with 12 Street will be aligned with the north section boundary road as shown in the Northwest Sector Area Structure Plan. These points of access /egress to the site have been reviewed by UMA's functional planning transportation engineer, and were viewed as being acceptable, and will not negatively impact traffic flows on 12th Street and Cassils Road. This separation of traffic along a north /south axis of Schmidt Street at the westerly limit of the Blair property allows future Tots to back onto the Salonka property and a convenient division of these two properties. This division also acknowledges an existing shallow bury Eastern Irrigation District utility right -of -way and an existing berm allowing for a landscaped buffer between the backs of the future Blair and Salonka Tots. The extension of Schmidt Street creates a logical division and allows for easily staged development to the north of the Westland Acres Expansion Area. The proposed design for this phase acknowledges the 10,000 ft development setback requirement from the nearest point of the Lakeside Feedlot located two miles north and one mile west of the existing Westland Acres in SE 1/4 Section 13, Twp 19, Rge 15, W 4th. This development setback effectively sterilizes a portion of the northwest corner of the SE 1/4 Section 6, Twp 19, Rge 14, W 4th and is reflected in the proposed plan. The deferred reserve from the previous subdivision consists of 2.404 hectares (5.940 acres). Phase IV of this Area Structure Plan will accommodate the total deferred reserve and the required 10% for the remainder of the property. (see Table below) This portion of the total R238# 26 Phase %MR Required MR Provided Phase III 10% (1.07ac) ±0.49ha (1.22ac) 11.4% Phase IV 10% +Deferred Reserve (8.782ac) +3.554ha(8.782ac) 22.3% reserve required for Phase IV will be accommodated within the proposed park situated approximately in the centre of the Blair property and the gas right of way to the east. Previous Deferred Reserve +2.404ha (5.940ac) Phase IV MR Required +1.150ha (2.842ac) Total +3.554ha (8.782ac) As demonstrated in the above table, Phase III of the proposed development will accommodate the required 10% reserve. Phase IV however will accommodate the required 10% and the former deferred reserve. Densities for the build out of the Blair property will include: Westland Acres 45 lots +135 persons Expansion 18 Tots +54 persons Balance Blair Lands 32 lots +96 persons 95 Tots +285 persons It is expected that the above population will access Cassils Road from 12th Street. R238# Salonka Lands to the West 39 lots 117 persons It is anticipated that the Salonka population will access Cassils Road from the proposed west boundary collector. Both areas of development will produce insufficient volumes of traffic to negatively impact the environmental capacities of the westerly or 12th Street collectors. Servicing for Phase IV will be via septic tank and field. When the development of this phase will commence it will be necessary to conduct percolation tests on the property to ensure that the land can support this septic system and there will not be a negative impact on the adjacent landowners. The water supply will be trucked into holding cisterns which is common practice in the area. 27 W CAS5IL.5 .H' L LA/<'E.5/DE FEEL' E25 (ASP ,2EQ L// ..C .QES /OEiL 77A L /o, 000 Fr, (.304 M) sETB,4 cK E.l;'ST'A.t G.R. S. .'JS%1ELOP 01X>SED wE57L/- v..11:15 A e 5 aY MS /ON 6X /S /NC o7EAcr2wY /tom/ L1 ✓LL7Pr' •e A17 (WE s /a5 2E5) LIMA F/61012.E. W._..........�....... Pi/TZ/i2E TLEATMENT PAC /L/ry MGAO W O WV#E WESTL.y1 M AGe BL/. J AYE/E A/[ EK /6T/NG �6VEJ CJ✓ =HNN NT Y I 1 -5. EAVCE a ✓L.t/// EX, LS s,.o l/ 42E4 1 t 1 1 1 1 tlAsi zeov NM.A GNG /NE.Ei2 /N6 LTO. LiEv/GiA/: S.L•S. .5CA.LE t000 CASs /LS ROAD CA SS /L.S ROA0 AREA. 2LJC' 7 LAZE PLAN 9'•p OIJ VeRLA IC) W._..........�....... Pi/TZ/i2E TLEATMENT PAC /L/ry MGAO W O WV#E WESTL.y1 M AGe BL/. J AYE/E A/[ EK /6T/NG �6VEJ CJ✓ =HNN NT Y I 1 -5. EAVCE a ✓L.t/// EX, LS s,.o l/ 42E4 1 t 1 1 1 1 tlAsi zeov NM.A GNG /NE.Ei2 /N6 LTO. LiEv/GiA/: S.L•S. .5CA.LE t000 CASs /LS ROAD CA SS /L.S ROA0 AREA. 2LJC' 7 LAZE PLAN 9'•p OIJ VeRLA IC) Future Phases (as amended by By -law 1128 -95) Subdivision and development beyond Phase IV are outside the scope of this Area Structure Plan as these developments are more urban than rural in nature. However, provisions for future development has been taken into account in the development of this plan. Phase V would be the re- subdivision of lots into smaller urban sized Tots. This phase of development can only proceed with the installation of a municipal water and sewer system, and will not occur until this area is annexed by the Town of Brooks. Phase III of the development should occur because annexation and subsequently a connection to the Town of Brooks servicing is not yet available. Once the subject site is annexed, the process of re- subdividing the existing lots can occur to permit a higher density, the removal of the individual septic and cistern utilities, and to encourage urban sized lots in the area. The prospective purchaser of any Tots in the expansion area will be advised of a "need to consider" future subdivision at the time of full servicing. Planning Beyond Phase V will have to be done as demand warrants and will require engineering studies and a new area structure plan. R238# 30 9. SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES To ensure that the subdivision development of lots in the initial phases of this plan do not prejudice future plans, the following guidelines are presented (as amended by By -law 1128- 95): 1. all subdivision of lots shall be in accordance with this plan; 2. the exact locations of all buildings and developments will be required to ensure proper planning of all Tots; 3. prior to subdivision approval applicants will be required to provide information on the utility services to be used; 4. percolation and ground water test satisfactory to the Provincial Plumbing Inspector will be required prior to subdivision approval; 5. all lots created in Phase I and II must have a minimum frontage of 30 metres (98.4 feet) and a minimum area of 0.50 hectares (1.24 acres); 6. The design of all new lots must take into account the future urban use of this area and, therefore, these lots should be multiples of 15 to 17 metres (49.2 to 55.8 feet) in width; 7. all lots created in Phase III must have a minimum area of 0.20 hectares (0.50 acres) 8. the re- subdivision of lots should take into account the ultimate plan for this area and therefore these lots should be multiples of 15 to 16 metres (49.21 to 52.49 feet); 9. all buildings erected shall take into account the proposed locations of future roads and lanes; 10. all new development shall comply with the following setback requirements: Front Setback Side Setbacks 7.5 metres (24.61 feet) 1.5 metres (4.92 feet) Or as Approved by the Municipal Planning Commission. 4 This diagram illustrates proper and improper building locations and how these can create future problems. INITIAL SUBDIVISION (PHASE 1) 15 m ROAD (PHASE 11) 1MPROPERI.Y LOCK. ED BUILDING 6 m LANE (PHASE 11) PROPERLY LOCATED BUILDING 31 SERVICE ROAD 1 E 0 ULTIMATE RESUBDIVISION TO FULLY SERVICED URBAN SIZED LOTS (PHASE 111) APPENDIX 1 Certificate of Title IV: of uuArn 1W &out)) 21berta ianb Iegistration ;District S LINC 0026 579 319 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PLAN 7811334 BLOCK "C" EXCEPTING PLAN NUMBER SUBDIVISION 8110015 SUBDIVISION 9211683 SUBDIVISION 9411185 SUBDIVISION 9512659 EXCEPTING THEREOUT ALL MINES ATS REFERENCE: 4;14;19;6;SE ESTATE: FEE SIMPLE MUNICIPALITY: COUNTY OF NEWELL ND. 4 D.C.T. ISSUED: NO REFERENCE NUMBER: 941 148 841 +10 REGISTRATION 951 261 856 OWNERS JAMES CECIL BLAIR (FARMER) AND CHRISTINE MARY BLAIR BOTH OF: YOUNGSTOWN ALBERTA AS JOINT TENANTS REGISTRATION NUMBER DATE (D /M /Y) 9JP 603LM SHORT LEGAL 7811334;C man: scum LIU 1'roactlon SEARCH DATE: 14/02/2000 HECTARES (ACRES) MORE OR LESS 1.362 3.37 1.112 2.75 2.777 6.86 2.26 5.58 AND MINERALS REGISTERED OWNER(S) OATE(DMY) DOCUMENT TYPE VALUE 15/11/1995 SUBDIVISION PLAN ENCUMBRANCES, LIENS INTERESTS PARTICULARS 16/03/1966 CAVEAT CAVEATOR THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE EASTERN IRRIGATION DISTRICT. 20/04/1972 UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY GRANTEE CANADIAN WESTERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY LIMITED. "20 FT STRIP" CONTINUED 82 14 2808 16:15 p. 2 Of 3 TITLE NUMBER 951 261 856 +27 CONSIDERATION T0: Uf1 GE0141TICS FROM: South LTO Production 02 -14 -2000 16:15 p. 3 of 3 ENCUMBRANCES, LIENS INTERESTS PAGE 2 REGISTRATION 951 261 856 +27 NUMBER DATE (D /M /Y) PARTICULARS 741 100 000 29/10/1974 IRRIGATION COUNCIL ORDER THIS PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN THE EASTERN IRRIGATION DISTRICT 751 0(70 389 03/01/1975 CAVEAT CAVEATOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EASTERN IRRIGATION DISTRICT. 79] 163 104 02/10/1979 UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY GRANTEE CANADIAN WESTERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY LIMITED. 921 135 993 08/06/1992 CAVEAT RE EASEMENT CAVEATOR TRANSALTA UTILITIES CORPORATION. SOX 1900, CALGARY ALBERTA •AGENT BERT VIK 931 026 636 03/02/1993 UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY GRANTEE AGT LIMITED. AS TO PORTION OR PLAN:9212667 TAKES PRIORITY OF CAVEAT 921025243 REGISTERED ON 04/02/92 951 017 975 20/01/1995 UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY GRANTEE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EASTERN IRRIGATION DISTRICT. 951 261 859 15/11/1995 CAVEAT RE DEFERRED RESERVE CAVEATOR SOUTHEAST ALBERTA REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION. C/0 PLANWELL CONSULTING LTD BOX 20036 KENSINGTON P.O. MEDICINE HAT ALBERTA T1A8M4 951 261.863 15/11/1995 UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY GRANTEE TRANSALTA UTILITIES CORPORATION. AS TO PORTION OR PLAN:9512660 951 261 866 15/11/1995 UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY GRANTEE THE EASTERN IRRIGATION DISTRICT. AS TO PORTION OR PLAN:9512661 951 266 649 22/11/1995 UTILITY RIGHT OF WAY GRANTEE CANADIAN WESTERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY LIMITED. TOTAL INSTRUMENTS: 012 *END OF SEARCH SR* J55968B /XLTUMAG1 APPENDIX 2 Geotechnical Study utvia UMA Engineering Ltd. Engineers, Planners Surveyors 2540 Kensington Road N.W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 3S3 (403) 270 -9200 FAX 270 -0399 October 28, 1999 File No: 3839-002 -00-07 Mr. Cecil Blair Box 1422 Brooks, Alberta T1R 1C3 Attention: Mr. Cecil Blair Dear Sir. Re: Geotechnical Investigation, Westlands Acres Phase II, Brooks, Alberta This letter briefly presents the results of a geotechnical investigation for the above site. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the subsurface conditions at the site and to assess those conditions with regards to the installation of septic fields. 1. Field and Laboratory Investigations The field investigation was done on October 16, 1999 and consisted of the drilling of eighteen boreholes and eighteen percolation test holes. The borehole locations are shown on Drawing 1, attached. The percolation tests were done in accordance with Alberta Environmental Protection guidelines. The boreholes were drilled to depths ranging from 3.0 m to 6.6 m below existing grade. Fifteen of the eighteen boreholes were shallow (3.0 m depth) and were drilled in order to obtain shallow water table levels. The three deeper boreholes (9908, 9913, and 9918) were drilled to assess foundation conditions for structures. Disturbed and split spoon samples were taken in the deep boreholes. Samples were not taken in the shallow boreholes. Standpipe piezometers were installed in all boreholes. All boreholes were logged in the field by a geotechnical technician from UMA Engineering Ltd. The borehole logs are also attached. Please note that the boreholes are referenced using the last four digits on the borehole log sheets. Laboratory testing was limited to moisture content determinations on all samples. The results are on the borehole logs. 2. Subsurface Conditions The subsurface soils were sand, silt, and clay. Topsoil thickness across the site was 0.3 m. Typically, the stratigraphy consisted of variable thickness of sand or silt over day and clay till. In only two boreholes (9907 and 9913), there was no sand or silt. There were day layers encountered below the topsoil in Boreholes 9902, 9905, 9906, 9907, 9908, 9909, 9913, 9917, and 9918. These clay layers were generally less than 1 m thick. The sand and silt layers were typically 1 m to 2 m thick. The top of the lower clay layer was between 1.2 m and 5.0 m below grade. The average top of the day layer was 1.9 m. MEEH A Member Firm of the of Alberta Lot Perc Rate Groundwater Level Suitable (Y /N) 1 15.2 Dry Y 2 15.0 2.75 Y 3 5.6 2.25 N 4 27.5 2.1 N 5 16.8 1.8 N 6 >60 1.3 N 7 >60 1.1 N 8 >60 1.5 N 9 >60 1.8 N 10 >60 1.8 N 11 >60 2.2 N 12 >60 2.4 N 13 >60 1.65 N 14 23.6 1.75 N 15 34.4 2.15 N 16 10.3 2.3 N 17 5.6 2.8 Y 18 >60 2.15 N Page 2 October 28, 1999 Mr. Cecil Blair Attention: Mr. Cecil Blair The percolation rates for the eighteen tests ranged from 5.6 minutes for 2.5 cm of drop to over 60 minutes for 2.5 cm of drop. The rates are presented in Table 1. The groundwater levels were read on October 22, 1999. The readings ranged from 1.1 m to 2.8 m below grade with one borehole (9901) that was dry. The groundwater levels are given on the borehole Togs and are also given in Table 1. 3. Evaluation and Recommendations Based on the results of the percolation tests and water table readings, there are only three Tots where the ground conditions are suitable for the installation of a standard septic field. As shown in Table 1, Lots 6 to 13 and 18 have percolation rates greater than 60 minutes for 2.5 cm of drop. This is the slowest permissible rate for the installation of standard septic fields. In the remaining nine Tots, only three lots (1, 2, and 17) had groundwater levels below the required depth of 2.4 m below grade. Table 1 Page 3 October 28, 1999 Mr. Cecil Blair Attention: Mr. Cecil Blair With the slow percolation rates and high groundwater levels, standard septic fields cannot be installed. Possible alternatives to septic fields include treatment mounds, pump out tanks, and individual treatment systems. The type of system will require approval from the County. In addition to the septic system, the high groundwater table will also have an impact on home construction. If basements are used, weeping tile and sump pumps will be required to control water infiltration. Waterproofing systems are also recommended. For home foundations, the soft subsoils will make it necessary for wider footings with a bearing capacity of 50 kPa. Bearing certificates are recommended. If you have any questions conceming the above, please contact our office. Yours very truly UMA ENGINEERING LTD Ms. riffin, M. ng., P.Eng. Senior Geotechnical Engineer pRolOTY iff,T EDIT /Piot '..E•••• :14 YY-MM-DD HH:MM j L PLoT DRIVER/DEVICE: HP4MV 1 AcAD PP FILE: A-hp4-F j FF:.CALE:: 8 j F ArAD ESL TS--916.dwg 0 REV YY Y MM OD 0 ISSUE/REVISION DESCRIPTION DRN DES CHK ENG Ulna UMA Engineering Ltd. Engineers, Manners Surveyors Rood NW_ Colq.sy, I?N THE DRAWiNG PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT I AW. AND SHOULD NOT BE REPRoDOCED IN ANY MANNER. olt IN? AN PliPI•VI. 1 IN PI IIY WRITTEN I 111 1IMA ILA us 1 ICING 1111 set" UMA JOB No. 3839-00? 00 -03 1 CECIL BLAIR WESTLAND ACRES PHASE H SITE PLAN AND BOREHOLE LOCATIONS DISK ACAO FILE No. TS 6.dwg 1 DRAWING No. ISS/P 0 ,z i 4 1 r■ 1 5 ie 4 f N t• P ift• SO a r 4 ei 20 i.. c 3 CP5PT.„ 3 1 -*le I 4.r 1 JI M i do' I': y c MI z wily 7..2,, ...P ii. ie Sat?. 13119916 8149915 t, '3/92. 8119914 i_rr ...Tir....-111[1":- 8119913 r3r,..zcsr-r,..riv.z_ ovi r: e -7...---Z, ;I 3 9918 8119917 4 8119912 4 0149911 8149910 i. .:.,...s. A 31 901 8119902 1 4" 1=k -rs, s 8119903 8119904 8H9905 8119908 1*19907 8H9908 N. 8119909 Pi In' .5 II^ n io it ,,,T-1•/ OP, A p es. A Vie' A at' pRolOTY iff,T EDIT /Piot '..E•••• :14 YY-MM-DD HH:MM j L PLoT DRIVER/DEVICE: HP4MV 1 AcAD PP FILE: A-hp4-F j FF:.CALE:: 8 j F ArAD ESL TS--916.dwg 0 REV YY Y MM OD 0 ISSUE/REVISION DESCRIPTION DRN DES CHK ENG Ulna UMA Engineering Ltd. Engineers, Manners Surveyors Rood NW_ Colq.sy, I?N THE DRAWiNG PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT I AW. AND SHOULD NOT BE REPRoDOCED IN ANY MANNER. olt IN? AN PliPI•VI. 1 IN PI IIY WRITTEN I 111 1IMA ILA us 1 ICING 1111 set" UMA JOB No. 3839-00? 00 -03 1 CECIL BLAIR WESTLAND ACRES PHASE H SITE PLAN AND BOREHOLE LOCATIONS DISK ACAO FILE No. TS 6.dwg 1 DRAWING No. ISS/P 0 EXPLANATIt.14 OF FIELD LABORATORst PEST DATA The field and laboratory test results, as shown for each hole, are described below. 1. Natural Moisture Content The relationship between the natural moisture content and depth is significant in determining the subsurface moisture conditions. The Atterberg Limits for a sample should be compared to the natural moisture content and should be on the Plasticity Chart in order to determine their classification. 2. Soil Profile and Description Each soil strata is classified and described noting any special conditions. The Modified Unified Classification System (MUCS) is used. The soil profile refers to the existing ground level at the time the hole was done. Where available, the ground elevation is shown. The soil symbols used are shown in detail on the soil classification chart. 3. Tests on Soil Samples Laboratory and field tests are identified by the following and are on the Togs: Standard Penetration Test (SPT) Blow Count. The SPT is conducted in the field to assess the in situ consistency of cohesive soils and the relative density of non cohesive soils. The N value recorded is the number of blows from a 63.5 kg hammer dropped 760 mm which is required to drive a 51 mm split spoon sampler 300 mm into the soil. SO Water Soluble Sulphate Content. Expressed in percent. Conducted primarily to determine requirements for the use of sulphate resistant cement. Further details on the water soluble sulphate content are given in Section 6. Yo Dry Unit Weight. Usually expressed in kN /m July 1996 N Consistency C (kPa) approx. 0 -1 Very Soft <10 1 -4 Soft 10 -25 4 -8 Firm 25 -50 8 -15 Stiff 50 -100 15 30 Very Stiff 100 200 30 60 Hard 200 300 >60 Very Hard >300 y Total pit Weight. Usually expressed in kN /m Q Unconfined Compressive Strength. Usually expressed in kPa and may be used in determining allowable bearing capacity of the soil. C Undrained Shear Strength. Usually expressed in kPa. This value is determined by either a direct shear test or by an unconfined com- pression test and may also be used in determining the allowable bearing capacity of the soil. CpEN Pocket Penetrometer Reading. Usually expressed in kPa. Estimate of the undrained shear strength as determined by a pocket pene- trometer. The following tests may also be performed on selected soil samples and the results are given on separate sheets enclosed with the logs: Grain Size Analysis Standard or Modified Proctor Compaction Test Califomia Bearing Ratio Test Direct Shear Test Permeability Test Consolidation Test Triaxial Test 4. Soil Density and Consistency The SPT test described above may be used to estimate the consistency of cohesive soils and the density of cohesionless soils. These approximate relationships are summarized in the following tables: Table 1 Cohesive Soils July 1996 Table 2 Cohesionless Soils 5. Sample Condition and Type The depth, type, and condition of samples are indicated on the Togs by the fol- lowing symbols: Grab Sample Shelby Tube SPT Sample I I 6. Water Soluble Sulphate Concentration The following table, from CSA Standard A23.1 -94, indicates the requirements for concrete subjected to sulphate attack based upon the percentage of water soluble sulphate as presented on the logs. CSA Standard A23.1 -94 should be read in conjunction with the table. Table 3 Requirements For Concrete Subjected to Sulphate Attack* Water soluble Sulphate Minimum Maximum Paden Class Degree sulphate (SO (SO Specified water Icemen d of of in sal sample, in ground 28 d ling cement expo exposur water compressive materials to sure e samples, strength, MPaf robot be mg/L used# S-1 Very severe over 2.0 over 10,000 35 0.40 50 S-2 Severe 0.20 2.0 1,500 32 0.45 50 10,000 S-3 Moderat 0.10 0.20 150 -1,500 30 e For sea water exposure see Clause 15.4 t See Clause 15.1.4 See Clause 15.1.5 Type 20 cement with moderate sulphate resistance (see Clause 3.1.2) Variable No Recovery Core Sample 0.50 20§, 40, or 50 July 1996 N Density 0 5 Very Loose 5 10 Loose 10 30 Compact 30 50 Dense >50 Very Dense Table 2 Cohesionless Soils 5. Sample Condition and Type The depth, type, and condition of samples are indicated on the Togs by the fol- lowing symbols: Grab Sample Shelby Tube SPT Sample I I 6. Water Soluble Sulphate Concentration The following table, from CSA Standard A23.1 -94, indicates the requirements for concrete subjected to sulphate attack based upon the percentage of water soluble sulphate as presented on the logs. CSA Standard A23.1 -94 should be read in conjunction with the table. Table 3 Requirements For Concrete Subjected to Sulphate Attack* Water soluble Sulphate Minimum Maximum Paden Class Degree sulphate (SO (SO Specified water Icemen d of of in sal sample, in ground 28 d ling cement expo exposur water compressive materials to sure e samples, strength, MPaf robot be mg/L used# S-1 Very severe over 2.0 over 10,000 35 0.40 50 S-2 Severe 0.20 2.0 1,500 32 0.45 50 10,000 S-3 Moderat 0.10 0.20 150 -1,500 30 e For sea water exposure see Clause 15.4 t See Clause 15.1.4 See Clause 15.1.5 Type 20 cement with moderate sulphate resistance (see Clause 3.1.2) Variable No Recovery Core Sample 0.50 20§, 40, or 50 July 1996 7. Groundwater Table The groundwater table is indicated by the equilibrium level of water in a stand- pipe installed in a borehole or test pit. This level is generally taken at least 24 hours after installation of the standpipe. The groundwater level is subject to seasonal variations and is usually highest in the spring. The symbol on the logs indicating the groundwater level is an inverted solid triangle (V). July 1996 FRACTION SIEVE SIZE (mm) DEFINING RANGES OF PERCENTAGE BY WEIGHT OF MINOR COMPONENTS •a. -a- a• .r 7- GRAVt1. (.OARSE 75 18 50.35 AND FINE 19 4.75 SAND COARSE 4.75 2.00 35 20 Y MEDIUM 2.00 0.425 FINE 0.425 0.060 20 -10 SOME SILT (non•psbc) or 0.090 10 -1 TRACE CLAY (plotle) GRAVELS (MORE THAN HALF COARSE GRAINS LARGER THAN 4.75 mm) SANDS (MORE THAN HALF COARSE GRAINS SMALLER THAN 4.75 Rao) SILTS (BELOW' A' UNE NEGUGIBLE ORGANIC CONTENT) CLAYS (ABOVE' A' UNE NEGLIGIBLE ORGANIC CONTENT) ORGANIC SILTS CLAYS (BELOW' A' UNE) CLEAN GRAVELS (UTTLE OR NO FINES) DIRTY GRAVELS (WITH SOME FINES) CLEAN SANDS (UTTLE OR NO FINES) DIRTY SANDS (WITH SOME FINES) W <50 W1 50 WC` 30 30<W 50 W >50 w W >50 HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS BEDROCK c o o 4 c o SILTY GRAVELS, GRAVEL SAND -SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY GRAVELS, GRAVEL SAND -CLAY MIXTURES J u 1II III..= III GW WELL GRADED GRAVELS. LI OR NO FINES GP GM GC SW SP SILTY SANDS. SAND -SILT MIXTURES CLAYEY SANDS, SAND -CLAY MIXTURES SM SC ML MH CL CI CH OL OH Pt BR POORLY GRADED GRAVELS AND GRAVEL SAND MIXTURES, LITTLE OR NO FINES WELL GRADED SANDS, GRAVELLY SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES POORLY GRADED SANDS, LITTLE OR NO FINES INORGANIC SILTS AND VERY FINE SANDS, ROCK FLOUR, SILTY SANDS OF SLIGHT PLASTICITY INORGANIC SILTS, MICACEOUS OR DIATOMACEOUS FINE SANDY OR SILTY SOILS INORGANIC CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY, GRAVELLY. SANDY, OR SILTY CLAYS, LEAN CLAYS INORGANIC CLAYS OF MEDIUM PLASTICITY, SILTY CLAYS INORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAYS ORGANIC SILTS AND ORGANIC SILTY CLAYS OF LOW PLASTICITY ORGANIC CLAYS OF HIGH PLASTICITY PEAT AND OTHER HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS CONTENT OF FINES EXCEEDS 12% ATTERBERG OMITS BELOW 'A' LINE W, LESS THAN ATTERBERG LIMITS ABOVE •A' UNE W, MORE THAN 7 C 6 C (D40) 1t03 D D. x D. NOT MEETING ABOVE REQUIREMENTS CONTENT OF FINES EXCEEDS 12% ATTERBERO UMITS BELOW *A* UNE W, LESS THAN 4 ATTERBERO UMITS ABOVE' A' UNE W, MORE THAN 7 CLASSIFICATION IS BASED UPON PLASTICITY CHART (SEE BELOW) WHENEVER THE NATURE OF THE FINE CONTENT HAS NOT BEEN DETERMINED, IT IS DESIGNATED BY THE LETTER F'. E.G. SF IS A MIXTURE OF SAND WITH SILT OR CLAY STRONG COLOUR OR ODOUR. AND OFTEN FIBROUS TEXTURE SEE REPORT DESCRIPTION 8 5 9 OIL 0 10 m 30 40 00 30 U0440 UMIT 70 SO W 100 NOTE: 1. BOUNDARY CLASSIFICATION POSSESSING CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO GROUPS ARE GIVEN GROUP SYMBOLS, E.G. GWGC IS A WELL GRADED GRAVEL MIXTURE WITH CLAY BINDER BETWEEN 5% AND 12% SOIL COMPONENTS COBBLES 75 mm TO 200 mm ROCK FRAGMENTS BOULDERS >200 mm ROCKS 0.75 m' IN VOLUME JULY 1996 MODIFIED UNIFIED CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR SOILS �1t1 MAJOR DIVISION MUGS SYMBOLS TYPICAL DESCRIPTION CRITERIA CLIENT: Cecil Blair DRILLER: Aqua Boring PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG METHOD: Solid Stern Auger ELEVATION: SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SAMPLE SHELBY TUBE SPT SAMPLE E A- CASING MI NO RECOVERY 11 CORE SAMPLE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE 111 PEA GRAVEL 1111 SLOUGH Ell GROUT 0 DRILL CUTTINGS gtil SAND J W E v SOIL Z w Z •SPT (Standard Pen Test). o 20 40 60 80 W. W w REMARKS E o f O N DESCRIPTION n Q N N P L AS TIC M.C. UDUID o 1 1 20 40 60 80 0.0 OL TOPSOIL loose, dry 0.0 SILT ML sandy, loose low plastic Tight brown dry -1.o -1.0 CLAY silty, low plastic, medium brown, occ. oxidizes and sulphates, frequent sand 2.0 CL lenses, moist to wet 2.0 —3.0 —3.0 END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 m Groundwater Level Dry October 22, 1999 4.0 4.0 —5.0 —5.0 —6.0 —6.0 7.0 7.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 UMA Engineering Ltd. b g LOGGED BY: DL COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m REVIEWED BY: GDG COMPLETE: 99/10/16 Calgary, Alberta Fig. No: Page 1 of 1 T Westland Acres Phase II :0.1PY (BM1OW LOCATION: See Site Plan bUKthULt. Nu: JO.) UUL/ ��v 1 CLIENT: Cecil Blair DRILLER: Aqua Boring PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 PROJECT SAMPLE BACKFILL E 1-- o ENGINEER: TYPE v TYPE c N o N GDG GRAB SAMPLE BENTONITE if SOIL SHELBY TUBE PEA GRAVEL METHOD: Solid SPT 1111 SLOUGH SAMPLE 1.....t N Stem Z w __1 Auger 13_ A- CASING M GROUT •SPT (Standard Pen Test). 20 40 60 80 OE ELEVATION: NO RECOVERY DRILL o W t- CL 11 CORE SAMPLE CUTTINGS la SAND REMARKS W cm DESCRIPTION PLASTIC M.C. UOUIO I I 10 40 60 80 0.0 t.o 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 CI SM ML TOPSOIL loose, moist 0.0 1.0 2.0 1 999 3.0 4.0 5.0 —6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 7 CLAY silty, medium plastic, dark brown, moist silty, SAND fine grained, light brown, wet SI LT sandy, light to medium brown, wet Leve 2.75 m Octob 22, ,Groundwater END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 m UMA En ineenn Ltd. g g §9/10/250443N (ern9w Calgary, Alberta LOGGED BY: DL COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m REVIEWED BY: GDG COMPLETE: 99/10/16 Fig. No: Page 1 of 1 NI UJLUI: Westland Acres Nnase it LULAIIUN: gee 31te non DU L PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase II LOCATION: See Site Plan BOREHOLE NO: 3839002/990.) DRILLER: Aqua Boring PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 CLIENT: Cecil Blair PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG METHOD: Solid Stem Auger ELEVATION: SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SAMPLE SHELBY TUBE SPT SAMPLE A- CASING I NO RECOVERY 11 CORE SAMPLE CKFILL TYPE BENTONITE E PEA GRAVEL II SLOUGH Eil GROUT r a DRILL CUTTINGS 1 (w)H1d30 asn SOIL SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE NO (N)1 •SPT (Standard Test)* 20 40 60 BO 8313 031. REMARKS DEPTH(m) PLASTIC M.C. UOUIO I ■IOZ3Id IO1S I 20 40 60 80 0.0 •0 2.0 3.0 4.0 -5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 —9.0 10.0 OL SM SP CL 1 1 TOPSOIL -r° r j 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 -5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 —9.0 10.0 2. 3 Z SAND silty, fine grained, dark brown, damp to moist SAND medium grained, clean, medium brown occasional oxides, medium brown, moist CLAY silty, firm, low plastic, dark brown, occasional sand lenses, wet Groundwater Level 2.25 m October 22, 1999 END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 m UMA En ineerin Ltd. g g Calgary, Alberta §9/10/25 04 01PY ISOM 1 LOGGED BY: DL COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m REVIEWED BY: GDG COMPLETE: 99/10/15 Fig. No: Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase II CLIENT: Cecil Blair PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG SAMPLE TYPE ■GRAB SAMPLE BACKFILL TYPE .BENTONITE CI_ W 0 0.0 1.0 2. 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 U N OL ML SP J CID ((1) -J O (1) 0000 0000 0000 /10/25 04:05P1 TOPSOIL SOIL DESCRIPTION SILT sandy, low plastic, medium brown, moist j CLAY silty, stiff, medium plastic, medium brown, occ. sand lenses, moist to wet I Groundwater Level 2.1 m October 22, 1999 END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 m UMA Engineering Ltd. Calgary, Alberta LOCATION: See Site Plan DRILLER: Aqua Boring METHOD: Solid Stem Auger SHELBY TUBE SPT SAMPLE PEA GRAVEL SLOUGH SAND med grained, med brown,moist to wet CL W -J J 0 CL (n •SPT (Standard Pen Test)• 20 40 60 80 PLASTIC 20 40 60 80 LOGGED BY: DL REVIEWED BY: GDG Fig. No: M.C. UOUID BOREHOLE NO: Ji3.) PROJECT NO: 3839- 002 -00 ELEVATION: A— CASING NO RECOVERY m CORE SAMPLE GROUT DRILL CUTTINGS SAND LJ 0 1- W W O J O N W 0 REMARKS COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m COMPLETE: 99/10/15 0 w 0 0.0 1.0 2 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 Page 1 of 1 E F-- a. w 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 U V) OL CI SP SM ICI 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 I9/10/25 0405w WHIM, LOCATION: See Site Plan SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL CLAY silty, stiff, medium plastic, dark brown occasional sand lenses, moist SAND medium grained, wet Groundwater Level 1.8 m October 22, 1999 SAND silty, medium grained, medium brown moist to wet END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 m UMA Engineering Ltd. Calgary, Alberta DRILLER: Aqua Boring METHOD: Solid Stem Auger SHELBY TUBE SPT SAMPLE A- CASING PEA GRAVEL SLOUGH t GROUT w a W J J 0 1- a •SPT (Standard Pen Test)* c W 20 40 60 80 PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID o o 20 40 60 80 LOGGED BY: DL REVIEWED BY: GDG Fig. No: BOREHOLE NO: 3839002/9900 PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 ELEVATION: NO RECOVERY m CORE SAMPLE DRILL CUTTINGS Ej SAND REMARKS W 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m COMPLETE: 99 /10/15 Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase II CLIENT: Cecil Blair PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG SAMPLE TYPE ■GRAB SAMPLE BACKFILL TYPE ■BENTONITE PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase II LOCATION: See Site Plan BOREHOLE NU: JOJ UuL/ J uo CLIENT: Cecil Blair DRILLER: Aqua Boring PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG METHOD: Solid Stem Auger ELEVATION: SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SAMPLE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE SHELBY TUBE PEA GRAVEL 0 SPT SAMPLE E 1111 SLOUGH t A- CASING GROUT NO RECOVERY 1 1 CORE SAMPLE 0 DRILL CUTTINGS RA SAND E O. N -J m N o SOIL DESCRIPTION IJJ CL w Q CD Z J Q .F_, N •SPT (Standard Pen Test)• 20 40 60 80 o W REMARKS E o PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID 20 40 60 80 00 1.0 t 2.0 —3.0 —4.0 —5.0 —6.0 7.0 —8.0 9.0 10.0 OL CL SP CI TOPSOIL 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 —4.0 —5.0 —6.0 7.0 —8.0 9.0 10.0 occasional CLAY silty, firm, low p lastic medium brown snod lenses, moist 000 000 medium grained, wet \Groundwater Level 1.3 m October 22, 1999 7 CLAY (TILL) stiff, medium plastic, medium to dark brown, moist END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 m UMA En ineerin Ltd. g g Calgary, Alberta X9/10/25 04:061 181410M'__ _1 LOGGED BY: DL COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m REVIEWED BY: GDG COMPLETE: 99/10/15 Fiq. No: Poe 1 of 1 g CLIENT: Cecil Blair DRILLER: Aqua Boring PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG METHOD: Solid Stem Auger ELEVATION: 4 SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SAMPLE SHELBY TUBE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE PEA GRAVEL 1111 SPT SAMPLE SLOUGH E A-CASING GROUT NO RECOVERY 1 1 DRILL CUTTINGS CORE SAMPLE SAND SOIL 1.-1 Z 20 (Standard 40 60 Pen Te o '-,2 REMARKS I- o DESCRIPTION Q N a. PLASTIC M.C. UOUID o W w vi 20 40 60 80 0.0 OL TOPSOI 0.0 CL silty, stiff, medium plastic, dark brown occ. sulphates, moist to wet 1 p Groundwater Level 1.1 m October 22, 1999 1' C1 2.0 3.0 3.0 END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 m 4.0 —4.0 —5.0 —5.0 6.0 6.0 7.0 7.0 —8.0 8.0 9.0 9.0 10.0 10.0 UMA En ineerin Ltd. g g LOGGED BY: DL COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m REVIEWED BY: GDG COMPLETE: 99/10/16 Calgary, Alberta 19/10/25 04:07PM (814117P___) Fig. No: Page 1 of 1 g PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase II LOCATION: See Site Plan t3ORtrnULt Nu: uo..) uuc n) PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase II 0.0 OL CL –CI 1.0 ML 1 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 E F- d W 9.0 10.0 CI ML SP CI 0000 0000 SHELBY TUBE PEA GRAVEL SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL CLAY silty, firm, low to medium plastic, medium to dark brown, moist SILT sandy, some clay, firm, low plastic, medium brown, moist Groundwater Level 1.5 m October 22, 1999 CLAY (TILL) silty, stiff, medium plastic, medium brown, occ. oxides, moist SILT sandy, low plastic, medium brown, moist to wet SAND medium grained, moist to wet CLAY (TILL) silty, very stiff, medium plastic, medium brown to blueish grey, moist END OF BOREHOLE AT 6.6 m UMA Engineering Ltd. Calgary, Alberta DRILLER: Aqua Boring METHOD: Solid Stem Auger SPT SAMPLE A– CASING SLOUGH GROUT w w CL J X 1 X w J cL 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1- CL 10 22 22 22 PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 ELEVATION: NO RECOVERY m CORE SAMPLE DRILL CUTTINGS Q SAND •SPT (Standard Pen Test)• o w 20 40 60 80 o- PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID o oN 0. I I a 20 40 60 80 REMARKS S w 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 0.0 1.0 9.0 10.0 t LOGGED BY: DL REVIEWED BY: GDG Fig. No: COMPLETION DEPTH: 6.6 m COMPLETE: 99 /10/15 Page 1 of 1 CLIENT: Cecil Blair PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG SAMPLE TYPE IIGRAB SAMPLE BACKFILL TYPE ■BENTONITE 9/10/2b 0 (BMW LOCATION: See Site Plan BOREHOLE NO: Jb,59UUL/ yy ub PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase II LOCATION: See Site Plan BOREHOLE NO: t UU[/ yyv� CLIENT: Cecil Blair DRILLER: Aqua Boring PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SAMPLE IACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE fif SHELBY TUBE PEA GRAVEL METHOD: 1 1M Solid Stem Auger SPT SAMPLE SLOUGH E r A- CASING GROUT ELEVATION: NO RECOVERY 11 CORE SAMPLE DRILL CUTTINGS go SAND DEPTH(m) 3sn SOIL SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE NO (N)ldS •SPT (Standard Pen Test)• 20 41 l 80 i 83131 031. RE S DEPTH(m) PLASTIC N.C. UOUID VOZ3Id IO1S I I 20 40 60 80 0.0 —1.o -3.0 a.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 —8.0 9.0 10.0 DL CL —CI ML CI TOPSOIL i j 1 0.0 -1.0 i 2.0 —3.0 a.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 —8.0 9.0 10.0 CLAY silty, firm, low to medium plastic, dark brown, occ. sand lenses, moist SILT sandy, some clay, firm, low plastic, medium brown, moist Groundwater Level 1.8 m October 22, 1999 CLAY (TILL) silty, stiff, medium plastic, medium brown, occ. oxides, moist END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 m UMA Engineering Ltd. r� g Calgary, Alberta LOGGED BY DL COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m REVIEWED BY: GDG COMPLETE: 99/10/15 Fig. No: Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase II LOCATION: See Site Plan BOREHOLE NO: StbiUuL/ yy 10 CLIENT: Cecil Blair DRILLER: Aqua Boring PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG METHOD: Solid Stem Auger ELEVATION: SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SAMPLE SHELBY TUBE SPT SAMPLE E A- CASING NO RECOVERY I I CORE SAMPLE ACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE Fa PEA GRAVEL IM SLOUGH Mk GROUT r a DRILL CUTTINGS MI SAND DEPTH(m) asn SOIL SYMBOL SOIL DESCRIPTION 1 SAMPLE TYPE J SAMPLE NO •SPT (Standard Pen Test)* 20 40 80 tl]1]1 431. REM j DEPTH(m) IdS PLASTIC 1A.C. UOUID I IVL]IO 101S 1 20 40 60 80 0.0 1.0 Y 2.0 —3.0 4.0 —5.0 6.0 7.0 —8.0 9.0 10.0 OL TOPSOIL rit 0.0 1.0 1 2.0 —3. o 4.0 —5.0 6.0 7.0 —8.0 9.0 10.0 ML SILT sandy, stiff, low plastic, medium brown, moist SM CI ;3V o SAND silty, fine grained, medium brown, moist to wet Groundwater level 1.8 m October 22, 1999 CLAY (TILL) silty, medium plastic, medium brown, occasional sand lenses, moist END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 m UMA En ineerin L.,. g Calgary, Alberta 49/10/25 04.09P11 1111410V1 1 LOGGED BY: DL COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m REVIEWED BY: GDG COMPLETE: 99/10/15 Fig. No: Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase II LOCATION: See Site Plan BOREHOLE NO: 36J90U2/ yy i i CLIENT: Cecil Blair DRILLER: Aqua Boring PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 PROJECT SAMPLE BACKFILL E o ENGINEER: TYPE N TYPE —J m N J o GDG GRAB SAMPLE 7 SHELBY TUBE BENTONITE 111 PEA GRAVEL SOIL METHOD: 1111 Solid SPT SLOUGH Stem SAMPLE Lul J 1- n Z J Cl_ N Auger l-. N t •SPT A- CASING GROUT M (Standard Pen Test)• 20 4 60 80 ELEVATION: NO RECOVERY DRILL o W I- 1 1 CORE SAMPLE CUTTINGS E SAND REMARKS E W o DESCRIPTION PLASTIC M.C UO l a I 20 40 60 80 0.0 1.0 t o 2. i 3.0 4.0 —5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 OL ML SM a TOPSOIL i 0.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 —5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 7-9.0 10.0 SILT sandy, stiff, low plastic, medium brow moist .1 112 SAND silty, fine grained, medium brown, moist wet Goundwater Level 2.2 m October 22, 1999 CLAY f (TILL) silty, medium plastic, medium brown, occasional sand lenses, moist END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 m Engineering UMA Engineering Ltd. Caleary, Alberta 99110/25 04:a9PY 1BH10W__ I LOGGED BY: DL COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m REVIEWED BY: GDG COMPLETE: 99/10/15 Fig. No: Poe 1 of 1 g CLIENT: Cecil Blair DRILLER: Aqua Boring PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG METHOD: Solid Stem Auger ELEVATION: SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SAMPLE SHELBY TUBE F SPT SAMPLE g A– CASING OE NO RECOVERY 11 CORE SAMPLE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE 111 PEA GRAVEL 1111 SLOUGH lE GROUT 0 DRILL CUTTINGS gS SAND E w v c r N SOIL DESCRIPTION w Z w a: Z v a (r) •SPT (Standard Pen Test)• c 20 40 60 BO i- W L'-' REMARKS E W PLASTIC M.C. UOUID N 20 40 60 80 o.o 1.0 2.0 1 10 4.0 5.0 —6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 OL TOPSOIL ri 0.0 1.0 -2.0 3.0 —4.0 5.0 —6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 M L SILT sandy, stiff, low plastic, medium brown, brown, most SM o SAND silty, fine grained, medium brown, moist to wet CI CLAY (TILL) silty, medium plastic, medium brown occasional sand lenses, moist Groundwater Level 2.4 m October 22, 1999 END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 m UMA En ineerin Ltd. g g Calgary, Alberta LOGGED BY: DL COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m REVIEWED BY: GDG COMPLETE: 99/10/15 Fig. No: Page 1 of 1 PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase 11 LOCATION: See Site Pion dUrttnuLL Nu: JOJJuuc/ PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase II LOCATION: See Site Plan BOREHOLE NO: 38390Uz yy i J CLIENT: Cecil Blair DRILLER: Aqua Boring PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG METHOD: Solid Stem Auger ELEVATION: SAMPLE TYPE BACKFILL TYPE GRAB SAMPLE Z SHELBY TUBE BENTONITE lii PEA GRAVEL j 1111 SPT SAMPLE A- CASING Or SLOUGH Efi GROUT r a NO RECOVERY 1 1 CORE SAMPLE DRILL CUTTINGS SAND E m SOIL Z •SPT (Standard Pen Test)• o W REMARKS E v) v J 20 40 60 80 t-- M o o v) DESCRIPTION v) Q N N a. PLASTIC M.C. UOUID t Ili a o 1 20 40 60 80 0.0 OL TOPSOIL 0.0 C LAY silty, stiff, medium plastic, medium brown, occ. sand lenses Sc oxides, moist 1 1.0 to wet 1.0 Groundwater Level 1.65 m October 22, 1999 X 2 7 1 3 3.0 3.0 X 4 17 5 10, 4.0 p -a.o 6 25 0 ,4 5.0 5.0 CLAY (TILL) 7 7 0 silty, very stiff, medium plastic, p medium CI brown, occ. oxides, moist 0 6.0 0 —6.0 X 8 20 II END OF BOREHOLE AT 6.6 m 7.0 -7.0 8.0 8.0 9.0 —9.0 10.0 10.0 UMA Engineering Ltd. Ltd. m REVIEWED BY: CDG COMPLETE: 99/ Calgary, Alberta g Fig. No: 9• Page 1 1 )9/70/25 04 PV IBNtaw of PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase II LOCATION: See Site Plan BOREHOLE NO: 3839002/9 14 CLIENT: Cecil Blair DRILLER: Aqua Boring PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG METHOD: Solid Stem Auger ELEVATION: SAMPLE BACKFILL E o TYPE TYPE V) m o cn GRAB SAMPLE BENTONITE E SOIL SHELBY TUBE PEA GRAVEL 1111 SPT SLOUGH SAMPLE w c N n Z J Q o N Z v N A- CASING S GROUT r a •SPT (Stondord Pen Test)• 20 40 60 80 NO RECOVERY DRILL o W M 1 1 CORE SAMPLE CUTTINGS Ri1 SAND REMARKS E DESCRIPTION PLASTIC M.C. UQUID 1 W d 1 20 40 60 80 0.0 1.D 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 1.0 6.0 9.0 10.0 OL ML S M CI TOPSOIL 0 0 —1.0 1 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 SILT sandy, stiff, low plastic medium brown moist SAND silty, fine grained, medium brown, moist to wet t G Level 1.75 m October 22, 1999 CLAY (TILL) silty, medium plastic, medium brown, occasional sand lenses, moist END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 m UMA En ineerin T g g Calgary, Alberta §9/10/25 a4:1IPU (axiom v LOGGED BY: DL COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m REVIEWED BY: GDG COMPLETE: 99/10/15 Fig. No: Page 1 of 1 g PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase 11 LOCATION: See Site Plan BOREHOLE NO: 38 9UUL/ 9 y 1 DRILLER: Aqua Boring PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 CLIENT: Cecil Blair PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG METHOD: Solid Stem Auger ELEVATION: SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SAMPLE Z SHELBY TUBE SPT SAMPLE E A- CASING ot NO RECOVERY 1 1 CORE SAMPLE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE 111 PEA GRAVEL 1111 SLOUGH El GROUT DRILL CUTTINGS igi SAND DEPTH(m) asn SOIL SYMBOL I SOIL DESCRIPTION SAMPLE TYPE SAMPLE NO (N)1dS *PT (Standard Pen Test)* 20 40 60 80 83131" 031. REMARKS F c PLASTIC I.C. UOUIO rl 1 VOZ3Id 101S I I 20 40 60 80 0.0 1.0 2. 3.0 4.0 —5.0 —6.0 —1.0 —8.0 —9.0 10.0 OL ML SM CI TOPSOIL ,j "7 j I SILT sandy, stiff, low plastic, medium brown, moist °,Groundwater 7 SAND silty, fine grained, medium brown, moist to wet Level 2.15 m October 22, 1999 CLAY (TILL) silty, medium plastic, medium brown, occasional sand lenses, moist END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 m UMA En ineerin Ltd. g g Calgary, Alberta LOGGED BY: DL COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m REVIEWED BY: GDG COMPLETE: 99/10/15 Fig. No: Page 1 o BOREHOLE NO: 383900Z/ yy 10 CLIENT: Cecil Blair PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG SAMPLE TYPE ■GRAB SAMPLE BACKFILL TYPE ■BENTONITE E F-- W 0.0 1.0 2.0 Y 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 J N O OL ML leeo o w SM go o Leo C 7 DRILLER: Aqua Boring METHOD: Solid Stem Auger SHELBY TUBE SPT SAMPLE A- CASING PEA GRAVEL SLOUGH SOIL DESCRIPTION w —J A TOPSOIL SILT silty, stiff, low plastic, medium brown, moist SAND silty, fine grained, medium brown, moist to wet CLAY (TILL) silty, medium plastic, medium brown, occasional sand lenses, moist Groundwater Level 2.3 m October 22, 1999 END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 m UMA Engineering Ltd. Calgary, Alberta O LA-1 —J cn C- GROUT •SPT (Standard Pen Test)* o d' 20 40 60 80 L PLASTIC M.C. UOUID N o l I 20 40 60 80 ELEVATION: LOGGED BY: DL REVIEWED BY: GDG Fig. No: PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 NO RECOVERY m CORE SAMPLE DRILL CUTTINGS El SAND REMARKS E W O 00 COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m COMPLETE: 99/10/15 Page 1 PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase 11 LOCATION: See Site Plan 119/10/25 04:12P11 (BH1OW 1.0 2.0 3.0 1 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.1 of 1 PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase II LOCATION: See Site Plan bUNLHULt NU: JOJUUL/ I I CLIENT: Cecil Blair DRILLER: Aqua Boring PROJECT NO: 3839-002-00 PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SAMPLE BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE SHELBY TUBE PEA GRAVEL METHOD: Solid Stem Auger 'T SAMPLE MI SLOUGH A-CASIN 111 NO al GROUT r a DRILL ELEVATION: RECOVERY I I CORE SAMPLE CUTTINGS fa SAND DEPTH(m) I asn Li..■ SOIL DESCRIPTION SOIL SYMBOL Up p -1 cc) SAMPLE NO •SPT (Standard Pen Test)* E 20 40 60 80 REMARKS DEPTH(m) 11dS C PLASTIC M.C. LIQUID I I 3LV 1 PIEZO! I 20 40 60 80 0.0 0 2. y 3.0 4.0 —5.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 OL TOPSOIL r/ u.0 2.0 3.0 —4.0 —5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 0 sr CI CLAY silty, medium plastic, dark brown, occasional sand lenses, moist ammo 0000 (woo 0000 SAND silty, fine to medium grained, medium brown, moist to wet .../;_-7, 7 CLAY silty, sandy, firm, medium plastic, brown, moist to wet i medium 1Groundwater Level 2.8 m October 22, 1999 END OF BOREHOLE AT 3.0 m UMA Engmeenng Ltd Calgary, Alberta LOGGED BY: DL COMPLETION DEPTH: 3.0 m REVIEWED BY: GDG COMPLETE: 99/10/15 Fig. No: Page 1 of 1 99/10/25 04:%3p PROJECT: Westland Acres Phase II LOCATION: See Site Plan BOREHOLE NO: 3839002/ 9y 1 i7 CLIENT: Cecil Blair DRILLER: Aqua Boring PROJECT NO: 3839 002 -00 PROJECT ENGINEER: GDG METHOD: Solid Stem Auger ELEVATION: SAMPLE TYPE GRAB SAMPLE 7 SHELBY TUBE rd SPT SAMPLE E 00 SLOUGH A- CASING 111 GROUT 0 NO RECOVERY 11 CORE SAMPLE DRILL CUTTINGS al SAND BACKFILL TYPE BENTONITE 111 PEA GRAVEL E o V 0 V) o SOIL DESCRIPTION Q Z J Q N •SPT (Standard Pen Test)• 20 40 60 80 o w I- N CL REMARKS E o PLASTIC M.C. UOUID 1 20 40 60 80 0.0 1.0 2.� 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 OL CI SP Sk SP CI 1 1 7 TOPSOIL 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 8 26 0 ,C, 11 /0/ III 0/ 0, 0.0 1.0 2.Qi 3.0 1. 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 CLAY silty, medium brown, occ. sand lenses, oxides sulphates, moist to wet IMMO SAND medium grained, light brown, moist +3: i; 2 SAND silty, fine grained, light brown, wet Groundwater Level 2.15 m October 22, 1999 1 X 111 111110111111111111111111 SAND medium grained, medium brown, wet to saturated CLAY (TILL) silty, very stiff, medium plastic, blue grey, moist END OF BOREHOLE AT 6.1 m UMA En ineerin Ltd. g g Calgary, Alberta /10/2b 04:1011 113111Di 1 LOGGED BY: DL COMPLETION DEPTH: 6.1 m REVIEWED BY: GDG COMPLETE: 99/10/15 Fig. No: Page 1 of 1 APPENDIX 3 Mound Septic System (Excerpts taken from the Alberta Private Sewage Treatment and Disposal Regulations) Top Sol Cover minimum of 75 mm (3 Inches) deep 75 mm (3 Indn) layer of straw over gravel bed Gravel Fled 225 mm (9 Inches) under Wen* 50 mm (2 kmdna) above Side Slope 4 Hodxontal to 1 Veda' 4 1 Mound 9 m (10 bet) gravel measured from the narrowest paints Sandy Loam Fil Material 300 mm (12 Inches) deep In the center 160 mm (6 Inches) deep on the :Ides Manifold and Laterals Minimum 01 300 mm (12 inch) layer of nand below the gravel bad Natural Ground Level Mont Una from Septic Tank The bottom of the gravel bad must be a rrhknimnsn of 900 mm (3 feet) above any restricting Myer or seasondy saturated layer. The bottom of the gravel bed must be a minimum of 1500 mm (5 feet) above any Impervious Myer. Fig. M1 46 TREATMENT MOUNDS If the soli percolation rate is either too fast or too slow or a seasonally saturated soil or water table exists closer than 1 m (3 feet) from the surface, constructing a treatment mound may be an alternative to a disposal field. Mound construction begins with the excavation of 1.5 m (5 feet) deep test holes to establish the presence of an impermeable layer or soil mottling. Soil mottling would indicate a seasonally saturated layer caused by a fluctuating water table. Soil mottling is a zone of chemical oxidation and reduction activity, appearing as splotchy patches or red, brown, orange and grey in the soil. A vertical separation of at least 1 m (3 feet) is required between the bottom of the gravel bed and any restricting layer or seasonally saturated layer In order to maintain aerobic conditions in the sand or Ni material under the gravel bed. Sons with a'hardpan' layer or bedrock, restrict the downward movement of the liquids. When impermeable bedrock is present, the vertical separation distance must be increased to, at least 1.5 m (5 feet). A properly constructed mound should be placed on at least .6 m (24 inches) of natural soil which is not seasonally saturated. If this is not possible, suitable fill material must be imported to provide the minimum .6 m (24 inch) vertical distance between the bottom of the sand layer and the seasonally saturated layer or hard pan layer. Proper construction practices for mounds are extremely important. 20 Once the location has been found to be suitable, the installation of the effluent line from the septic tank to the mound area may be installed. Prior to the actual installation of the effluent line, the installer must know the pump capacity and head pressure, the distance from the septic tank to the mound and the friction loss throughout the piping to enable him to size the effluent line to provide adequate pressure in the laterals for proper distribution of effluent. See Table 8.6 8 of the Code. The trench for the effluent line should extend only under the edge of where the base of the completed mound will be and must be careffUlly backfilled and compacted to prevent settling of the mound into the trench. CONSTRUCTION OF TREATMENT MOUNDS Please refer to the Code for specific details on the construction of treatment mounds. CONSTRUCTION OF LATERALS Laterals within the mound must be custom made for each individual Installation. Laterals are usually manufactured from Schedule 40 PVC pressure piping. See Figs. M2, M3 and M4 Pages 47, 48 The diameter and length of the lateral as well as the maximum number, size and spacing of perforations must be carefully calculated. See Table 8.6 C of the Code. The number and size of perforations must match the rate of discharge from the pump at a given head pressure in order to maintain a minimum head pressure throughout the distribution system. See Table D. The perforations must be drilled straight into the bottom of the laterals to ensure complete drainage. Perforations may also be drilled in the lower half of the face of the caps on the ends of the laterals.