The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-84-0217... .,... »-,.,�..! �ss^r-n&�: T-''�.eem*'1P"EG-: +wT ,�f: en'i'!�.d3; i§ �Ync`.s..�;. `i .'..M��'!s�:.•a'.w.,,. �.a•,.1a.� J-84-149 (a ) 2/15/84 RESOLUTION NO. 84-21 7, , A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE ZONING BOARD'S ACTION IN GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE; NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, ARTICLE 15, SECTION 1520, SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND SECTION 1527, MAXIMUM HEIGHT, TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION UP A MIXED USE PROJECT (GROVE. SQUARE) AT 2801 FLORIDA AVENUE;, ALSO DI SCRIBSD AS THE; S 95' OF LOTS 25 AND 26 LESS THE E 5.0' AND THE S 5.0' THEREOF, BLOCK 4, 14ILLIAM A. RICE SUB (1-13) AND TRACTS "A" AND "B", GROVE SQUARE (121-83) AS E'ER PLANS ON FILE, WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 56.0' (50.0' PERMITTED) AND SUBJECT TO THE DEDICATION OF THE S 5' OF LOTS 25 AND 26 AND THE E 5' OF THE S 9' OF LOT 25; CONTAINING A TIME LIMITATION OF 12 MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED; ZONED SPI-2; COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting of February 13, 1984, Item No. 1, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. Zb 14-84, by a 7 to 0 vote GRANTING A VARIANCE; as hereinafter set torth; and WHEREAS, an objector has taken an appeal to the City Commission from the grant of the variance; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, after careful consideration of this matter, finds that there are peculiar circumstances af- fecting this parcel of land and practical difficulties which would impair the owner's right to the reasonable use of the property in the absence of the variance which has been requested as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The decision of the Zoning Board granting a variance from Ordinance No. 9500, as amended, Article 15, Section 1520, SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT and Section 1527, Maximum Height, to permit construction of a mixed use project (Grove Square) at 2801 Florida Avenue, also described as the S 95' of Lots 25 and 26 less the E 5.0' and the CITYCOMMISSIONCOMMISSION MEETiING OF FEB 2894 19 Oh No. 84'--21 I. 0 S 5.0' thereof, Block 4, William A. Rice Sub (1-13) and Tracts "A" and "B", Grove Square (121-83) as per plans on file, with a Maximum Height of 56.0' (50.0' permitted) and subject to the dedication of the S 5' of Lots 25 and 26 and the E 5' of the S 9' of Lot 25, containing a time limitation of 12 months in which a building permit must be obtained and Zoned SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, is hereby affirmed. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28t11 day of Yebruary , 1984. ATTEST: Maurice A. Ferro MAURICE A. FERRE, Mayor RAL H G. ONGIE ity Clerk PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: &Mon �\, WA- G MIRIAM MAER Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: 00, kOSELG�PARCIA -EDR05A City Attorney GMM/wpc/ab/219 2 84 -217. 0 ►_J 2./17/84 RESOLUTION NO. ZB 14-84 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE No. 9500, AS AMENDED, ARTICLF. 15, SECTION 1520, SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND SECTION 1527, MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE PROJECT (GROVE SQUARE) AT 2801 FLORIDA AVENUE, ALSO DESCRIBED AS THE S 95' OF LOTS 25 AND 26 LESS THE E 5.0' AND THE S 5.0' THEREOF, BLOCK 4, WILLIAM A. RICE SUB (1-13) AND TRACTS "A" AND "B", GROVE SQUARE (121-83) AS PER PLANS ON FILE, WITH A MAXIMUM. HEIGHT OF 56.0' (50.0' PERMITTED) SUBJECT TO THE DEDICATION OF THE S 5' OF LOTS 25 AND 26 AND THE E 5' OF THE S 9' OF LOT 25; ZONED SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THIS VARIANCE HAS A TIME LIMITATION OF 12 MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDI14G PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its public hearing of February 13, 1984, after careful consideration of the Petition for Variance and having heard presentations and testimony from both the proponents and the objecters to the variance sought herein, finds that there are peculiar circumstances affecting this parcel of land and practical difficulties which would impair the owner's right to the reasonable use of the property in the absence of the variance as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. All of the requirements and standards set forth in Section 3103.1 of Zoninq Ordinance No. 9500 are hereby found to have been demonstrated by the Petitioner for the variance from Ordinance No. 9500, as amended, Article 15, Section 1520, SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT and Section 1527, Maximum Height to permit construction of a mixed use project (Grove Square) at 2801 Florida Avenue, also described as the S 95' of Lots 25 and 26 less the E 5.0' and the S 5.0' thereof, Block 4, William A. Rice Sub (1-13) and Tracts "A" and "B" , Grove Square (121-83) as per plans on file, with a maximum height of 56.0' (50.0' Permitted), Zoned SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE 84-217. , CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. Section 2. The variance from Ordinance No. 95U0, as amended, Article 15, Section 1520, SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE. CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DIS`I'RICT and Section 1527, Maximum height to permit construction of a mixed use project (Grove Square) at 2801 Florida Avenue, also described as the S 95' of Lots 25 and 26 less the E 5.0' and the S 5.U' Thereof, Block 4, vvilliam A. Rice Sub (1-13) and Tracts "A" and "B", Grove Square (121-83) as per plans on file, with a maximum height of 56.0' (50.0' Permitted) subject to the dedication of. the S 5' of Lots 25 and 26 and the E 5' of the S 9' of Lot 25; Zoned SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, is hereby granted. Section 3. This variance has a time limitation of twelve months in which a building permit must be obtained. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of February , 1984. A'i' ST: Chairman, Zoning Board Executive Secretary GMM/wpc/ab/221 2 84-217. • 0 it Howard V. Gary City Manager A relay E.'Perez-Lugones Director Planning and Zoning Boards Administration Department February 14, 1984 .,.: RESOLUTION - APPEAL BY OBJECTORS 2801 FLORIDA AVENUE COMMISSION AGENDA - FEBRUARY 28, 1984 PLANNING AND ZONING ITEMS It is recommended that a review be made of the Variance gra— ntea by the Zoning Boa`r�o permit construction of a mixed use project (Grove Square) with a proposed maximum height of 56.0' (50.0' permitted) at 2801 Florida Avenue. The Zoning Board, at its meeting of February 13, 1984, Item 1, following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution ZB 14-84 by a 7 to 0 vote, granting the variance from Ordinance 9500, as amended, ARTICLE 15, Section 1520, SPI-2: Coconut Grove Central Commercial District and Section 1527,E Maximum Height to permit construction of a mixed use project (Grove Square) at 2801 Florida Avenue, also described as the S 95' of Lots 25 and 26 less the E 5.0' thereof and less the S 5.0' thereof, Block 4, WILLIAM A. RICE SUB (1-13) and Tracts "A" and "B", GROVE SQUARE (121-83), as per plans on file, with a proposed maximum height of 56.0' (50.0' permitted) and with the voluntary dedication of the S 5' of Lots 25 and 26 and the E 5' of the S 9' of Lot 25; zoned SPI-2: Coconut Grove Central Commercial District. This variance has been granted a time limitation of twelve months in which a building permit must be obtained. Three objections received in the mail; four opponents present at the meeting. Twenty-one replies in favor received in the mail; twelve proponents present at the meeting. Backup information is included for your review. A RESOLUTION to provide for the above has been prepared by the City Attorney's Office and submitted for consideration of the City Commission. AEPL:111 cc: Law Department NOTE: Planning Department recommends: APPROVAL 84-217 , ZONING FACT SHEET LOCATION/LEGAL 2801 Florida Avenue The S 95' of Lots 25 & 26 less the E 5.0' thereof and less the S 5.0' thereof Block 4 WILLIAMS A. RICE SUB (1-13) Tract "A" and "B" GROVE SQUARE (121-83) OWNER/APPLICANT Earca N.V. and Interdevco-Grove Square, Inc. Jose Antonio Gutierrez Morillo Isaac Mildenberg Pedro Valls Jose Suriol 3326 Mary Street Miami, FL 33133 Phone # 442-8300 Stanley B. Price, Esquire (Attorney for Applicant) 2401 Douglas Road Miami, FL 33134 Phone # 446-2200 0 ZONING SPI-2: Coconut Grove Central Commercial District REQUEST Variance from Ordinance 9500, as amended, Article 15, Section 1520, SPI-2: Coconut Grove Central Commercial District and Section 1527, Maximum Height to permit construction of a mixed use project (Grove Square) on above site, as per plans on file, with a proposed maximum height of•56.0' (50.0' permitted). RECOMMENDATIONS PLANNING DEPT. APPROVAL. A hardship exists with the geological strata of hesubject site which has prevented reasonable efforts to de -water the excavation for a subsurface parking garage. The raising of the structure six feet would permit the construction of the parking above the existing water level. The additional height would not have an adverse impact upon the surrounding area. PUBLIC WORKS Request the dedication of the south 5' of lots 25 & 26 and the east 5' of the south 9' of lot 25. DADE CONNTY TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION ZONING BOARD Recommend dedication of 25' radius return on corner of Mary Street and Florida Avenue. At its meeting of February 13, 1984, the Zoning Board adopted Resolution ZB 14-84 by a 7 to 0 vote, granting the above with conditions. 84-217, -r. ,. _.. .... Y!'at .e.. ��.lysr.a';.r;.;+r::�.r'y:�=.�_:L� 4:K��n:C% ;1� �:�� :%}+3,S a.'.ia::-:• .".i�t;>rV1. .•.'�.�... �r�: :�3it.w.�}�I�+L .�Mlt.. ?..fY1ft�lYri+Irr M3.�. 4'. �•L •.. :�\.ls'14...�'w •+w^i �•�'L>1iA►L^.� �J��;�f',...�+.ltj.��1�.G:4.�t.il�..�."}�,J-— f.Y�V1: Y,lif•t..Y�.�+l�.. .. �:1"'i 3'�!t'Ya- rh 91A' 300 10 1 29150 so �" MAT o30 55 54 53 52 51 GROVE -smjTm3 6 695 3. 1169 4 1 t X 31 •32 is ss s 2 Z 9 I J Q ' op 1. CT.C) 66.9 O 2 33 z 34 ° LEM ON O a 3�' A ` e ' THE VILLAGE °'° 119.9 �N y0 V59 cc) �'Rs ' �e .� AVE. I so 43 44 Bft%fig. A 19 20 ?? 23 2 ZI so s a 3. .Z JP►r ------------------------ __Iw_ I GRAND AVE Q� CAN VA. BAYSNORE Q vE MID `r�` O,x 43 `,9 sAtLBoa7DAY O� %sl� v� { Hcm /V b. Q' i All ' Q ZB January 23, 1984 AS 4( � ' �I 2801 Florida Avenue Ap_J_2. C 0 . C YIANNIS B. ANTONIADIS =i 3326 MARY STREET MIAMI. FLA. 33133. FF 21 FEBRUARY 21ST, 1984. MR. AURELIO E. PEREZ-LUGONES, DIRECTOR, PLANNING & ZONING BOARDS, ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, CITY OF MIAMI, 275 N.W. 2ND STREET, P.O. Box 330708, MIAMI, FLA. 33233 RE: APPROVAL BY MIAMI ZONING BOARD ON FEBRUARY 13TH, 1984 OF ITEM NO. I ON THE AGENDA: 2801 FLORIDA AVENUE; THE S. 95' OF LOTS 25 & 26 LESS THE E. 5.0' THEREOF AND LESS THE S. 5.0' THEREOF BLOCK 4, WILLIAM A. RICE SU13 (1-13) AND TRACT "A" AND "B" GROVE SQUARE (121-83); VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE 9500, AS AMENDED, ARTICLE 15, SECTION 1520, SPI-2 COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND SECTION 1527, MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED -USE PROJECT (GROVE SQUARE) ON ABOVE SITE, AS PER PLANS ON FILE, WITH A PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 56.0' (50.0' PERMITTED); ZONED SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. DEAR MR. PEREZ-LUGONES: THE UNDERSIGNED IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS: 3326 MARY STREET, MIAMI. FLORIDA, 33133. LEGAL: WILLIAM A. RICE SUB. N.50 FT. LOTS 25 AND 26 BLOCK 4 PB.1/13 FOLIO No. 01-4121-34-0340 SAID PROPERTY IS WITHIN A 350 FEET RADIUS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. PLEASE CONSIDER THIS LETTER MY FORMAL. OBJECTION TO, AND APPEAL OF, THE VARIANCE GRANTED BY THE MIAMI ZONING BOARD ON FEBRUARY 13TH, 1984, REGARDING "GROVE SQUARE" AS ABOVE REFERENCED. [ REQUEST THAT THIS ISSUE BE HEARD BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI. YOUR CONSIDERATION IS APPRECIATED. VERY TRULY YOURS YlANNIS B. ANTONIADIS :C :. � . ... � .. , - •- . _ �- . � _ .. . � h'. �u .• .� IC`a'!..,�!�'iI:c3C �.!S'lt�•.lhs►' .�s�S.F:�`.�r=�'C:iS% .i i•N :�ar•":t(tw;•ar-in.: l.*,.+.aerw�s.-.i+ap*bad#.a�. s.::.....��.w+�.+.7�G+:.rw,w...av, ..s.ue.rtr�.tairr,... .. ,.: tt.''.�.'*•w�",...-.::,fi.'.°'Fwi :r-�•W% :'rT.K�:�:Y,%a WALTER A. MOBLEY P. 0. Box 451 Miami, F1. 33133 '84 F�:_ 14 F12 ��3 February 14, 1984 Mr. Aurelio E. Perez-Lugones Director Planning & Zoning Boards Administration Department City of Miami 275 N.W. 2nd. Street P. 0. Box 330708 Miami, F1. 33233 Re.: Approval by Miami Zoning Board on February 13, 1984 of Item No.1 on the Agenda: 2801 Florida Avenue; The S. 95' of Lots 25 & 26 less the E. 5.0' thereof and less the S. 5.0' thereof Block 4, WILLIAM A. RICE Sub (1-13) and Tract "A" and "B" GROVE SQUARE (121-83); vari- ance from Ordinance 9500, as amended, Article 15, Section 1520, SPI-2 Coconut Grove Central Commercial District and Section 1527, Maximum Height to permit construction of a mixed -use project (Grove Square) on above site, as per plans on file, with a proposed maximum height of 56.0' (50.0' permitted); zoned SPI-2: Coconut Grove Central Commercial District. 00 Dear Mr. Perez-Lugones: The undersigned is the owner of the property described as: Blk. 3, Lot 41 Less N. 5' & All Lot 42, 3300 Rice St. and Blk. 4, W. 10' of Lot 29 & All of Lot 30, 3333 Rice St. and Blk. 4, Lots 43 & 44 Less N. 5' thereof & Less W. 10' of Lot 43, 3315 Rice St. Said property is within a 350 feet radius of the subject property. Please consider this letter my formal objection to, and appeal of, the variance granted by the Miami Zoning Board on February 13, 1984, regarding "Grove Square" as above referenced. I request that this issue be placed before the City Commission of Miami on or before February 28, 1984. Your consideration is appreciated. Very truly yours, /4 � . tz4�w 04 Walter A. Mobley 10, ..:�%�t.':f`+�y��`•fi•y;,'%t'�.S •ir. 4-�.. � ._. .'r'.�.;. �.`:�• :?: �iF.-;.Y �t.ri".)i%9� .�'Ci:dAMNi4�!ticl'.. ;'NJ4v'.i'i=.i... .�. � :�R�...�. �'r �a.a'- .•--� •... �'i!}k^��.•s7►/f.�.�M•'h'�^� �/t�Li��..IM'�.•'•%.L3:�Y�CS.i�•.lihlAM.."•S11�Li O.1:j.•�. rpi�j, . 'L iA�.L77Wa::Ii:�it'A'i�.�.'.Mo'r.r r. Yw�L.'�r r!•1s....r ... » .. _ ..� �. PETITION FOR VARIANCE File Number V-83- A variance is relaxation of the terms of the ordinance where such action will not be contrary to the public interest and where, owing to conditions peculiar to the property and not the result of actions of the applicant, literal enforcement of this ordinance would result in unnecessary and undue hardship on the property. As used in this ordinance, a variance is authorized only for height, area, size of structure, dimensions of yards and other open spaces and offstreet parking or loading requirements. (Section 3101� Earca N.V. and Inter evco-Grove I, Square, Inc. hereby petition the City of Miami Zoning Board for a variance from the terms of t e "Zoning Ordinance of the City of Miami;' affecting property located otS.E. Corner of Mary St. & Fla. e•Miami, as specified below. In support of this application, the following material is submitted with this application: `_ I. Two copies of a survey of the property prepared by a State of Florida Registered Land Surveyor. Four copies of: the site plan showing (as required) property boundaries, existing (if any) and proposed structure(s), parking, landscaping, etc; building elevations - and dimensions and computations of lot area (gross and net), building spacing, LUI ratios, and height envelope. 3. Affidavits disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of interest form (Forms 4-83 and 4a83, attach to application). X 4. Certified list of owners of real estate within 375' radius from the outside boundaries of property covered by this application. (Form 6-83 and attach to application.) S. At least two photographs that show the entire property (land and improvements). 6. Other (Specify) 7. Fee of 5 ZD,t•YTto apply toward the cost of processing, based of the following: lk --�- PP Y P 9, 9� (a) RS, RG-1 $100.00 (b) For penetration of Plane III by antennas and the like $300.00 (c) All other applications for each request variance $0.03 per sq.ft. of floor area of building(s) from the ordinance minimum - $300,00 (d) Surcharge equal to applicable fee from (a)-(c) above, not to exceed $500.00; to be refunded if there is no appeal. (City Code - Section 62-61) e . 84-217.0 �7gppvsw.ti.. u. .. :• • K.y..: r..�. �.�rs:�t6u: ��}n;..u:✓:: r�i�-4;)i.s• ...r.y: �:.a.�+iC:.�+[JiFrM`r�'�rt�.::v:v.t;:•:...�•.•:.:�! t 8. The Variance requested is for relief from the provisions of Section 1527 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance as follows: _ Height Exceeds 50 Feet. The requested variance is for a building not to exceed 56 feet in height. 0 9. In support of this application, the applicant is prepared to offer the following evidence, on the point enumerated at Subsection 3103.1 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance: Note: This application cannot be accepted for Zoning Board action unless all of the following sic items are completed. X (a) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to tho Icnd, structure, or building involved and which ore not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district in that: (list evidence to be produced and use additional sheets, if necessary.) • Unique hydrolic conditions. Reports will be furnished by engineers. X_ (b) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the petitioner in that: _ To bq.demonstrated by reports of hydrolic engineers. • • � _ ...r �.J?a"'��7•�„`,ar �.��l. •. - ti• \`S:`a: .�+.-;..\•.ti t`F � �'� ' ,�.. .... �.. "•'wi.!!_.'.a'f ...._..�. ii!'I.:.�.L:Y�:•!'?M �•"�:?I.i« ..Y.'t.":Yira,�fjG..'hC. Y1uM'1yCYi.�7e.Y1t 1.4 •:!;.M* .�ye1s�•al.,l:.�a �[a►r+w�M:-••A•�,�1r�.:.re.+.. .vO+: . 8. The Variance requested is for relief from the provisions of Section 1527 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance as follows: _ Height Exceeds 50 Feet. The requested variance is for a , building not to exceed 56 feet in height. 9. In support of this application, the applicant is prepared to offer the following evidence, on the point enumerated at Subsection 3103.1 of the City of Miami Zoning Ordinance: Note: This application cannot be accepted for Zoning Board action unless all of the following six items are completed. X (a) Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure, or building involved and which are not applicable to other lands, structures, or buildings in the same zoning district in that: (list evidence to be produced and use additional sheets, if necessary.) • Unique hydrolic conditions. Reports will be furnished by engineers. X (b) The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the petitioner in that: _ To be.demonstrated by reports of hydrolic engineers. �. ..�., • .'Yt: �i.+r�•1N.Y•:La;JiU.Y e•:!-f':!•••F`r''.+K.': :t�.�Vv..a'Y'�a�... �....�...wI..1..'1.�h•Wtl+�W •�.y4l��w...txw. ... .-...n .. .. :�.tWwY"r+'r.'C'.•��.w" { �..'lY.Y4 �.+Y ±'.-. 1 ' X (c) Literal interpretation of the provisions of the zoning ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the some zoning district under the terms of the zoning ordinance and would work unnecessary, and undue hardships on the petitioner in that: The applicant has previously received approval for his building plans without the recourse of a single variance. The approved.plans have incorporated theaters, pedestrian open space and underground parking, all of which are en- couraged by the ordinance. To provide for these ameni- ties, the applicant is required (in view of the 50 foot height limitation) to excavate to a greater depth. In view of the unique hydrolic conditions, a slightly taller building will be required to fully incorporate the ame- nities into the new plan.- The public will benefit from, - these improvements and the conceptual plan of the build- ing will be enhanced. A failure to obtain the requested variance would require deletion of the public benefits. The proposed structure will still be smaller in size to other multi -story structures on the block. . t X (d) Granting the variance requested will not confer on the petitioner any special privilege that is denied by the Zoning Ordinance to other lands, buildings, or structures in the some zoning district in that: The•F.A.R., off-street parking, landscaping requiremeryts will be totally adhered to. As noted earlier, the struc- ture will still be smaller to the building it will surround. (e) The variance, if granted, is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land, building, or structure in that: The variance for height will not negatively impact sur- rounding uses and is needed solely to elevate the pre- sently approved structure to avoid unique hydrolic dif- ficulties. •R' •�:. :'.X�..•� .�Iw._.a:.Y:!`: �': :'it4T�. -U•':" .. .. ,. .a.� rwu l,.y nr{+r•;b,r •.,.yyy.. � .:Jwcw o.+-Jv.'+Lot.n+,Va.•fJa:'tl.•..Rrr.-..✓....!!:�., i`... �-,�i-...�u..r...'.....- =j (f) The grant of the variance will be in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood, or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. The request is in furtherance of the planning goals pronounced in Section 1520 of the -Zoning Code. Note: All documents, reports, studies, exhibits or other written or graphic material to be submitted to the Zoning Board shall be submitted with this application. • 1 Signature . Owner m eAuthorized Agent Name STANLEY B. PRICE, ESQUIRE 2401 Douglas Road Address Miami, Florida 33134 STATE OF FUORIDA) SS: COUNTY OF DADE ) STANLEY B. PRICE 1 being duly sworn, depose, and says that he is,the Owner Authorized Agent of Owner) of the real property described in answer to question #1, above; that he has read the foregoing answers and that the some are true and complete; and (if acting as. agent for owner) that he has authority to execute this petition on behalf of the owner. - (SEAL) Name)-� SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me this l day of Notary Public, State of lorida it Large__,� MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ►Jctary Pubis. Stat9 Of F-SlIt a a. L 2r^ i f y Ccmmission ExrAws January '• � S ; ono thru f immird soiufr.g Form 1-83 r pA 84-217. i Morse/Diesel, Inc. 444 Brickell Avenue, Suite 730 Miami. Florida 33131-2403 Telephone: 305/371-4322 Construction/Consulting January 5, 1984 Grove Square, Inc. 3326 Mary Street Coconut Grove, FL 33133 Attn: Peter Blicher RE: Grove Square Dear Peter: This is to document the following regarding the dewatering: .1. The site was investigated by Law Engineering Corp. which felt that dewatering was achievable. 2. The'dewatering system was designed by Griffin Dewatering Corp. one of -the largest international companies specializing in this work. 3. The system was started up but the on -site disposal into the deep wells installed for that purpose did not work due to recharging of the water into the excavation. 4. The system was then increased in capacity to pump out more water. In fact the system was tripled in size to about 500 well - points. 5. The method of disposal was then changed from the on -site deep wells to off -site storm sewers. This again did not work because the quantity of water was too great for the storm sewer. 6. Now a new storm sewer is being built to accommodate the 27,000 gpm being pumped from the site. There are still questions as to whether or not this latest step will work. The "experts" in the field are beginning to question the feasibility of going to the depth originally contemplated. Very truly yours, MORSE/DIESEL, INC. `EGG e4, Leonard R. Markowitz LRM/mb B4'"' 2 M. . 0, 10-4; AFFIDAVIT -STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF ) JOHN C. RALEIGH, as Affiant, has come before me and has sworn as follows: 1. That he is of legal years. 2. That he is a professional engineer and is president of Raleigh Services, Inc., 917 South 113th Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68154, an engineering firm specializing in dewatering services. 3. That he is a 1936 graduate of the University of Illinois and received a degree in engineering. That he has practiced civil engineering for over 46 years in both the United States Navy and as a private practitioner. 4. That he was chief engineer for John W. Stang, one of the world's largest dewatering engineering firms. 5. That he is presently a consulting engineer specializing exclusively in dewatering. That he was consulted on several major projects in Florida, including the construction of the Virginia Key public works project. 6. That he was retained by James A. Cummings, Inc., project general contractors to Grove Square to review and analyze the dewatering problems facing the project. 7. That on January 30, 1984, he presented his findings to James A. Cummings, Inc. (a true and correct copy is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). That he is determined that the subgrade elevation be raised so that the differential in head be no more than three to four feet. 8. That it is his opinion that the existing dewatering problems facing the project are virtually uncontrollable with conventional groundwater dewatering _1_ 84• i 17. equipment and it would not be cost effective or productive to continue with the existing dewatering system at the presently planned depth. 9. Further, Affiant sayeth not. / bhn C. Raleigh/ /,,�' Witness STATE OF FLORIDA ) ss COUNTY OF ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this gr1 day of 1984. My Commission Expires: NOTA Y PUPLIC STATE OF =LONDA 1!Y Cot.vAISSIVI EXPIRES N.A.R 21 1987 ;G,X.m 7h:U G_ 0',L 1' S,.. ,'':E U?1D -2- 84-w217 i • ...-..w..yj-4e:.. -�'.tii•:l':f+'f-'�:r,+2:e.� f �.. _. ._ 'r.»•I":1.�,t.1rS?.�i<a:-•l��ct'�t�1iY�•i�':«t.. .7Jitrtt9iti.r:=..-• w+t-:.-:'... _. _ i-.- t•. ..::^•w.a+^:..'�'`.!'i'_Z'..�'i'an'L�u._+ �l :M:�_f .l.i:..,..+rfv-�:s _e r.s «,, ..r:S ."�.:..sr �'..it,••.*7.1`b:l�.• .. 4s.'..?•t 7revi.?.£1:.i•.. e.yr.+w.-..--...a w....-+..:.;s ( RALFIGIs�S:R;17 th iF.S, INC. 917 {� ret O.'► AHA..ti'!:BRASKA &U54 (40:) 33 3•3184 January 30, 1984 James A. Cummings, Inc. 2425 East Commercial Blvd. Suite 402 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Attention: Mr. W. R. Derrer, Vice -President Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is a report covering the dewatering problem you encountered while attempting to excavate for the foundation of your Grove Square Project in Coconut Grove, Florida. We trust this report will prove beneficial toward a logical solution to the problem. Very truly yours, RALEIGH SERVICES, INC. by JP Ra eigh P.E JCR/hd encl. S4--217. , I. : — "-, ' - - � .. ' . - - _. -' - . - -' I _* � .-.,Z - 1 .4 .,. ? 0 *� - - 1 *' .:�Aa.�s�r�.'..�a:.,•.arb5!v..v:v.......�,.�...wwr�..c.�ar��w�.rM:.•:.r..... .- .. _. �.. -.-e.i.w;'.'�.`�'''.M'�--:�a►�a'7;?".w'.�•�.��'.s•: r:. ..{+:�: .�:a �...�i..;f .�s..:.r.. �:3��«�a GROVE SQUARE PROJECT MULTI -LEVEL COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA PREPARED FOR JAMES A. CUMMINGS, INC. BY RALEIGH SERVICES, INC. 917 S. 113tF STREET OMAHA, NEBRASKA 68154 84-2111. , .:'lY-�^+:;-a, tf�•!a �'�'Yq:.:- ;•�•�.^,,C ��.� _ram✓•..� .:.n,+.i.R.. �tr,+.��''"�. •w'.,...w+.+�•+,..c�...•Mt:a:::..ti'�r..•�awi•ina:•t.�sc�+�..w:..:.a�.�.,!...�,v—....�...r.w.e-+.....\•�✓+c�.s•..rrr-.. a R E P O R T TO: JAMES A. CUMMINGS, INC. FROM: RALEIGH SERVICES, INC. RE: GROVE SQUARE DEWATERING DATE: JANUARY 31, 1984 James A. Cummings, Inc. encountered groundwater at approximate elevation +2.0 M.S.L. while excavating for foundation at the Grove Square Project. The excavation was influenced by the cavitatious limestone formation known as the Fort Thompson layer. The reported soil permeability coefficients in centimeters per second were on the order of: 6.8x10-4 at 34.5' depth; 3.5 x 10-3 at 41.5' depth; 1.6 x 10-2 at 44.0' depth; 1.5 x 10-2 at 43.5' depth; 1.8 x 10-4 at 46.0' depth; 0.46 at 85' depth. The quantity of water anticipated to be pumped, according to the report, in order to lower the groundwater table to subgrade elevation of-6.08'± M.S.L., was 14,000 G.P.M. Griffin Dewatering Corp., who was awarded the dewatering subcontract, has had con- siderable experience dewatering excavations in the Miami area. They installed their system as it was originally designed by them and commenced.pumping at 5:00 p.m. on November 17, 1983. They were consistantly pumping at the approximate rate of 8,000 G.P.M. from 150 wellpoints. On November 20, 1983 the water table had been lowered to 0.01± in the center of the excavation. As part of the requirements, construction of two storm water discharge wells were specified to be drilled to an approximate depth of 1001. Two additional wells were also drilled in order to provide more capaci- ty for the disposal of the pumped groundwater. Each well had the approximate capacity of 3,500 G.P.M. totaling, for the four wells, 14,0000 G.P.M. At that time it appeared that the water being pumped into the four discharge wells was perculating upward to the surface at the excavation rather than dispursing completely, as expected, in the lower limestone stratum. Another :nears with a capacity to receive more discharge water was necessary. Two things happened. Griffin began modifying their dewatering system so that more water could be pumped. They in- creased their collectors from 150 to about 500 and increased pump- ing capacity accordingly. The City of Miami granted permission to use their nearby storm outfall lane which discharged into the bay. The line consisted of some 24" R.C.P. and some covered ditches which had been excavated into the upper Miami limestone. 840-210. . • T�': .•<.• .. \'. ... .... -. :4 .. .� :.L~. ii..•-;'�i::� •1� ram. iSi•1 •r+.�.:Y:l �"+Yh..-+\••.: a\N�: Y ^•i'••,.. •..n •w,.. :.p. ..�.. .a. ..f • .fit?.. �.. �•' .. Grove Square Dewatering January 31, 1984 P a v e T!!o Unfortunately this alternative proved inadequate because not only was the 24" R.C.P. too limited to accommmodate the necessary volume of discharge water but the covered ditches overflowed, undermining the street pavement. About 12,000 G.P.M. was being pumped at that time and it still was insufficient to lower the groundwater table to anywhere near the required -6.0± M.S.L. As an alternative, James A. Cummings, Inc. requested per- mission from the city to install a new buried, 36" R.C.P. dis- charge line which would connect to the existing outfall at a point about 200' from the bay. A second opinion was requested of Raleigh Services, Inc. by Cummings concerning the amount of water necessary to be pumped along with an opinion of what effect could reasonably be expected in the surrounding area by this type of pumping. Raleigh Services, Inc. made a study of the problem,which in- cluded calculations for estimating quantities of groundwater,which would have to be pumped in order to achieve certain draw downs under given conditions. As a basis for the calculations, actual pumping job records were used which were considered to be the most reliable information on the specific site available to date. Assumptions were then made as to the probable source of the water being collected. One approach was to assume that the source was the nearby bay. This was a logical assumption because the water level at the site did fluctuate with the tides. Because the deeper reaches of the Fort Thompson proved, by test, to be highly permeable, this was assumed to be the source for another set of calculations. Three methods commonly in use to compute quantities at ground- water to be pumped in order to achieve drawdown were used. Re- sults were then compared and tabulated. They are enclosed here- with. The three methods are: 1. Assuming a line source from the bay. 2. Assuming the lower limestone as the source. 3. Using specific yield as a means for determining quantity. Although results were not identical, there was fair correlation among them. However, all the calculations were made assuming permeabilities determined from the pumping which actually took place on the job. It is common in cavitatious limestone, such as exists at this site, for permeabilities to increase with time as water flows tend to cause the sand and silt to migrate,which previously partially filled S4 -217 , . 0 .. ^•�i�.:'..`�'1's'iL�.171:+.Gril;.W.r.+�I.+:+�.+wLi:4 t.. w:.,a..-.. .. ... ... ._.e•.. •�.. . N: r Grove Square Dewatering January 31, 1984 Page Three � .. .. .... . .. .� • ...:.tom ' }J :;f. •:.. the cavities. Water flow also attacks the limestone reducing the strength and thickness of the limestone,which is a skeletonious formation. This reducing the contents of the cavities could also have the effect of converting groundwater flow, which is laminar with velocity varying directly with the differential in head (drawdown), to turbulent flow, such as water flowing through an open pipe. With trubulent flow the velocity varies with the square of the head, i.e., the amount of head times itself. When this type of siutation develops, it is virtually impossible to control the flow using conventional groundwater dewatering equipment. Given the conditions(( existing at the time of this writing, it would be highly probable that no present or planned means of dis- charging the groundwater would be capable of accommodating the flows which could result. It is therefore strongly recommended that the subgrade ele- vation be raised a minimum of four feet. Acceleration of con- struction is also advisable in order to reduce pumping time. After you have reviewed this report in detail, it would be appreciated if we could further discuss this problem in the in- terest of achieving a most comprehensive ;solution. M 84-"21r/ :V Condition • N M � tJ fJ fJ fJ � �' • \ rt ►+• \ Q \ rt \ \ \ Y w fD M t P. F+ w fi r in 0 0 0 N O O Date CO r CO CO cn A A A Al. a. a G) K to w M 4 K K N G) M r g Gl 5' O 'o K ca a CL M m n H• fD o M M:j M (D N• o M O G O M O rt (I P. 'O i n n tT n r M H. n W M P. C M 5 n tT N r• rt M M" O G tr M O M (AM O N W 5 rrf M O tT rt M ►' M M ►i W M 'a ". o M W Source Of N• P. rt rD CL P. a tT o f-•• O. M K P. A O W P. Information O O M M IA rt W Y IA 5 ut M O CA Q UI rt p. M M rt UI I U1 M r NM rt Mb w w W Drawdown in • M M M m Center of %D W N .I N w M u O B N 1; w .I fJ N to - Excavation :3 O' ID to 11 W r r ,t A A M n m M Pt fi ? 0 Drawdown in LI A o w .1 to IL u o ur Perimeter Trench 1 to N � - -art 9 G �a a J O r r r N N W Quantity of Water Ln 0 0 rn 0 u+ Which was Pumped 0 0 0 0 o G.P.M. 0 0 0 w m N o Bay Shore Line it Source Mathe- nWi 0 0 � N o matical Calcu- lations Ln J Q% o ` ` II In Gallons Per J N da O O O W A N O A o .j j r r ►� r � w w Ln to o 11 Minute r �c o 0 1 ,� N J O O a , A ` Ln O 11 J �1 p A In Lower Fort Thompson w O Limestone as O N 1 1 I a) a Source In N O N O - Gallons Per Minute Of J ` A o W r 1 1 1 11 ,is O r �I O 4! W W W W a CO In _I _I O O II Specific °' 1 CO °D ul r Yield O A CO CD d 0 0 0 ko o . u+ OD %c %o 0 o Method of - A r O 10 °D O Estimating 9 r to - r w o o w • r r tr r r �r J A A A LA Flow In Gallons O Ln O N OD Per Minute 84-2:tI. ■ ■i AFFIDAVIT STATE OF FLORIDA) SS. COMM OF DADE ) Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personalty appeared STANLEY B. PRICE who being by rre first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says: 1. That he is the owner, or the legal representative of the owner, sub,•aitting the accompanying application for a public hearing as required by Ordinance No. 9500 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, effecting the real property located in the City of Miami as described and listed on the pages attached to this affidavit and made a part thereof. 2. That all owners which he represents, if any, have given their full and complete permission for him to act in their behalf for the change or modification of a classification or regulation of zoning as set out in the acco:panying petition. 3. That the pages attached hereto and made a part of this affidavit contain the current names, mailing addresses, phone numbers and legal descriptions for the real property which he is the owner or legal representative. 4. The facts -as represented in the application and docents submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are true and correct. Further Affiant sayeth not. Sworn to and Subscribed before the •t'nisday of . Nr.`.ary' Public, State of Florida at Large Kry Commission Expires: Net ^ry Public. State of Pwid3 at L:rgo MY ,•cmm,ssion Expires ,ianuary 22, 1387 sondori ;hru tdaynard S:.na.rg Agency (SZkL) (Narr.e 84P-2:17 / OWIER S LIST Owner's 'lame Earca N.V. and Interdevco-Grove Square, Inc. Mailing Address 3326 Mary Street, Miami, Florida 33133 Telephone Number 442-8300 Legal Description: Tracts A & B, Grove Square Plat PB 121, P 83. plvi P44. 3--.44 af- 1-06 ?.SaN,I 2-4 IJIVA Y 7f f-Af, A. Alce, S", //V"i/✓, n jw f 4 o i h. 11 P.-p h L, Atiu' ,4 D P, A 4,.i„.1y , owner's Nane Mailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: Owner's Name Mailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 375' of the subject site is listed as follows: Street Address Legal Description Street Address Legal Description Street Address Legal Description J 84--217. , . s DISCLOSURE OF CWIEP-SHIP 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property: l'A 4�--T �4 e> �'_-i: w x c u: �_�tc,...-t -C W.11\�� ti iC� '��(?7>r.V=i��iGl�1 TIc - .A�k Cam., :T�f �F w, C J►+k 2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership. Note: City of '.Iiami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject matter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Commission. Accordingly, question 42 requires disclosure of all shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together ;with their addresses and proportionate interest. _Ike Q io - IC)cnpi, �C St 1 b `. .20/o c�.ci � � � � •. -33 ,� iv }- l rt (� y s��" 1 �� .a,�.:} 'FL c� 3 3 t 33 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question #2, and (b) located within 375 feet of the subject real property. STATE. OF FLORIDA ) SS: COU'i rY OF DADE ) TI..:•:. IM MNER OA- AMOWE'Y FOR FMER Tc(L: IFILI.;. , 7Acc3sc:►.1 i��u� ��t�rw� COLA/-� 1 SS►•,WJ Art,IS F -�tiw,Z STC—PI- C-t-i T. Vk;-- ;:MA4 J being duly sworn, deposes aiui says that he is the (CGwner) Attorney for Owner-)','�of the real property described in answer to question , ve; at a has read the foregoing answers and that the sage are true and complete; and -(if acting as attorney for owner) that he has authority to execute this Disclosure of Ownership form on behalf of the owner. (SEAL) t>'iC..'. ►- KC. , J Act. t3.i<./.! ��. IC ti=1 k.1.► � C �i+Af.� + � �•W i SWOFN TO AND SUBSCRIBED k rnj's k►`. ta.: tl C'f- before me this 3,-Q- day of 198-t. Notary + lic, state of .• Florida at Large MY COMMISSION ]EXPIRES: NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF FLORIDA MT CONW.ISSION WIRES APR 16 1W 8U:L'ED IH9V CENERAL INSLKANCE UQ, 84-�217. (over) OWUIER' S LIST Owner's flame Earca N.V. and Interdevco-Grove Square, Inc. flailing Address 3326 Mary Streets Miami, Florida 33133 Telephone Number 442-8300 Legal Description: Tracts A & B, Grove Square Plat PB 121, P 83. pi i �44- 5'✓44 n1wF 4o,A, !, Rol 13 l,L, Ry�� a � p,.,lc, Co�•t f�, UWner's Nane flailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: Owner's Name Mailing Address Telephone Number _ Legal Description: Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 375' of the subject site is listed as follows: Street Address Legal Description Street Address Street Address Legal Description Legal Description �� 84--2:17. , STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS: COUNTY OF DADE ) `�1c_'I'ik7 -3-• IUt f-,�iftKl , being duly ern, deposes and says that he is the duly appointed rY c) CV" K ktz \./ of �> � < < "� t;' , the owner of the real property described in answer to question = , above; that he has read the foregoing answers; that the same are true and com- plete; and that he has the authority to execute this Disclosure of Owner- ship form on behalf of the owner. SMRN TO PAID SUESCHBED before me this 3 rk day of t , 198. MY CMIMISSION' EXPIRES: NOTARY PUcLIC ST-%TE OF FLORIDA MY C0V,. J1 .!C'd E).PIF,ES FFn la liO BONCED THRJ GEfdr'•L iN$JK+NCE UND Wwpc/ab/G 25 (SEAL) (Name) % t= iN CZ TAc u i"J`-c Y- , k l ",k( / C L c ► A-' k 5ZL ICA I }fit/S Ff-11- c_t tv�pZ_ Notary Public, State of Florida at Large - , .. ,:� ��z� ._ :.. �•..-.;_:max t I r, r c ' 0 2- l; i6 _, , (v •;ut. ' � n ;�i. ^.i, }'1 .� '�?;, }<;}•TIC.;N � F'}cwt ••• C" . ;F S' ;S1 2 1' -10" Crc.y a rl y rand ;,nd 7 l 10 14 1,4 44 4 54 44 98 316.0' Soft to 1};ird 37 39 (;52 ! i 6 t ..n itdy 1 i .'• r,;c k 54 _ 74 93 30 37 8 40 48 77 - 23 29 - -- 1 _ _ 17 33 I 46 SS3 ci 10 �:� IFE41 15 t SS5 20 L' I 1 ;j l SS6 25 S57 30 SS8 35 0 23 13 3.0 23 17 7 6 13 15 6 4 10 20 _ ...9 19 - 24 13 Continued on page 2-- TYPE OF SAMPLE GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS �� 19 8 D.-DISTURPEO G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. INS. U.L.-UNDIST. LINER G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. INS. S.T.-SHELBY TUBE G.W. AFTER COMPLETION FT. INS. S.S. -SPLIT SPCOII G.W. AFTER HRS. FjJ� INS. Sr-.:•�cr. !:clion Teel - DiivingPc 0A S 11fif{i " In-r -/,/i 149r N,-^.. f c11:nq :f•'; Ccvn1 l�c!e At 6" lo�r-.ols G.W. VOLUMES 84 R.C.-POCK CORE_-- i OiNER- ------r'- I ,r -]1"/6 Jr' (`•t-`_:CIN I. r i _,. - - 1, ..f F,u. --_ -- a -- _ �.. .\ — - _— -- R, i'(..F �.._ ;•F. =SF, _-- -- -- - — { r C(lr7t inked f rum - Tan n.in_'.y ] i::.r-rnck ( ( 5.0' V.?ry 1 ous e trin n id L: Gt-.-7i 4 + SS9 �� 40 �;i] ica nd 3 -- _ I 30 50 7.0' F.:tre:nely hard tan s ndy _ _ SSI. 45 1imerock 60 ,_ 110 j SS1U 50 100 4" rid of Boring: 50.0' :':IIiE: �� dc•:I�t c:s ;,� nrtrat�cn re - tI }I r ASTLM D--1.586. r _ 7- TYPE OF SLMPLE Respectfully submitted: GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS 0. -DISTURBED G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. 1N: U.L.-•UNDIST. LINER .�� G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. IN; �ea�, ?,�e S.T.—SNELBY TUBE .�. G.W. AFTER COMPLETION FT. IN1 S.S. —SPLIT SPOON G.W. AFTER NRS. f� M'f INt R.C.—ROCK CORE 5tc. dcrd Per.rtretion Test — Driving 2" OD Sccpler 1' With �i 4�'�/ j I . ``++ I G'11EF- 1:0- He",rat rclliny 30"; Count !!cde At 6** Inttivoi• G.W. VOLUMES x ^7Pj.'.�:fl't$Yn�' �. ,ey,�;, ;:-rKY. r.we-:er:.'r..e.+.�:...�..-•--.-....-,.-..._.-.. ._ � �� i � }. iv •'1 '- � `1 ..i ,�i, F•lt,rir'.a ! t Al F t I. V. ti- - ------ - - - - - - - - -- --- - - - -- _ r !1 r T>t' ---- f i th t •. d SOIL C i "(7 f�!T. 1 !1 t� n -+ G• ' S r. PC..tF -•F.rPSF. 1i i - t I -r 18 4 _ -- ---- - - - --- l 5 a 10 --- - --- -- - SS1 2 3'-11" Grey r..irly sand r:nd 15 9 1 i%rerock f ill 4 8 11 17 9 4 �52I -6 27.0' Soft to .•c:r} },-:r-d ',:an 9 20 13 � :.� 1y 1 `.,`.,,,rock- 28 - 25 I 8 19 _21 44 _ 23 15 SS3 - -- 10 - 13 — 17 -- 28 - - - --- 2 5 21 ---- - SSL 15 21 42 - - ---- _ -- - 15 10 - SSSs ?0 9 19 8 8 SS6 25 7 15 - - 10 4 SS7 ---30 4 - - 8 20.0' Very loose to f irm tan - --- " - - and grey silica e.-nd 10 . SS8 35 1.1 ---- ---22- -- -- ---------- --- _ 2 SS9 40 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 2 4 _ Continued on page 2 _ TYPE OF SAMPLE GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS O. -DISTURBED G.W. ENCOUNTEREO AT 19 FT. 6 INS. U.L.-UNOIST. LINER G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. INS. S.T.-SHELSY TUBE S.S. -SPLIT SPOON G.W. AFTER COMPLETION FT. INS. R.C.-ROCK CORE Stol.!ord Per.etrolion Test - Oririnq 2" OD Sampler V Nith G.W. AFTER HRS. Q INS. I OTHER- 1409 Homn.er Fcllinq 30"; Count IAo_e At 6" Inlervols G.W. VOLUMES a�' i6 2.1-76 t .: n 'r; .. i, }=1 .I-Ya <er- It�t,.'. - -. TYie C•r•i, Lr;—d loll fJi �l_f:.l'r i I IJ ° l s f„• C' ht.1' C!F. St r•,; �FSF. i I - - _ Tr,n and grey sil ira --::nd 2 2 SS1C i 45 1 3 i 2 G i i- 5S11 50 4 10 -- 9.01 Firm to very dc-nse tan rand . -- and rock fra.L.cnts - 3 - 6 - 7 ].3 SS12� _55 - - - 31 30 - - [ - 34 54 SS13i 60 _-- _ -- Fnd of Boring: !0.01 4 i TYPE OF SAMPLE Respectfully Submlttea: GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS D.—DisTURSED /��"� G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. INS. U.L.—UNOIST. LINER // / /e`� G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. INS. S•T.—SHEL.Y TUBE CCiiJJ / _ �� G.W. AFTER CCMPLETION FT. IN$ S.S. -+FLIT �-PGON A. T. Ave la, P.E. R.C. -hOCK C C R E Stdcrd Peretrotien Test — Driving 2" OD Suiopler V WitA G.W. AFTER HRS. — INS e•• O!HER _ - 1:OF Ho o"at Falling 50"; Ccuum HGde At 6" Inte-i_als — G.W. VOLUMES �' �� 1 1. l+ O a t� 2 T ,"S1 2 _4 h SS2 6 8 SS 10 SS4 15 SS5 ' 20 SS6 25 SS7_ 30 31 32 _ 33 34 36 SS8- -37 � - 38- 39 SS9 40 TYPE OF SAMPLE D. -DISTURBED U.L.—UNDIST. LINER S.T.—SHELBY TUBE S.S. —SPLIT SPOON R.C.—POCK C 7HE OTHER— F- IE t n f I I f V., -. Cott_ r,t �.ci�rt t rc.•r� V-10" '•icderately }1,=rd to vr-ry },:gird tan sandy 1 i*:.c-rock Very loose to loose tan and 13.0' white silica sand ^ — Continued on page 2 r.:i, Flu, :t,'I ..._-r �r..•!�r on I tl iV t1 c t.lr a __._'u nr, r�.•.� - 84 + Fol f", wt.P.C.F. It— •!.f SF 26 22 22 22 144 40 40 26 30 66 - 26 13 10 16 23 - - - 20 18- 15 17 33 15 18 33 10 20 15 8 8 16 - 9 ---7- - - 13 6 I 2_ 2 GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT 17 FT. 3 INS G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. INS G.W. AFTER COMPLETION FT. INS Slondotd Pc-.clletian Test — Driving 2" OD Scmplet V With G.W. AFTER NRS.8�� INS 1<0; Hemr.er Falling 30"; Count Mcde At b" inter vols G.W• VOLUMES _ TAW-- ..�. .. Oft 9 /6 µt.P.C.F. Shr�_.t,iSF I t a GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. INS. G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. INS. G.W. AFTER COMPLETION FT. INS. G.W. AFTER HRS. FT. INS. MTE - 101 1U )ft I 1�' a CaTF `rt `I t`',nL ` nple — •.c•,n a +tl iv I..tv,al Uc. Ct p. �1 t Type Orprh I .y—d F011. i i ' C RIF I ;C,N ni, t ru. L" A+,F+.C.F. S+. ;•t,;-SF. A-:pl,-Ilt 18 6 SS1 2 Li, ,rock with 7 � 15 ] 3 - — - - - bru%:n sand fill 23 19 - 4 17 17 36 27.0' Moderately hard to vl-ry Ii,,I d 31 25 SS2 l 6 tan <<,ndy li,=+ rock 25 2.7 50 26 116 8 15 1.7 31 27 21 _ - SS3 10 19 34 40 SS4 SS5 i 20 SS6 1.25 SS7 30 SS8 35 � S9 A 40 TYPE OF SAMPLE 0. —DISTURBED U.L.—UI.DIST. LINER S.T.-54-ELUY TUBE S.S. —SPLIT $FGCN C^RE OTRLR- 7.0' Firm tan and brown silica sand 8.0' Firm tan limesand with rock fragments Continued on page 2 J S+o>+dc+d Per.et+clicn Teat — Driving $" OD Senpler V With 1-0: Nc-cer Felling 30"; Ceunt N.cd& At 6" Ir'Ier-als 16 18 21 39 i� � 15 10 10 _ ?0. _ 7 GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT 19 FT. 5 INS. G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. INS. G.W. AFTER COMPLETION FT. 11,eS. G.W. AFTER HRS. ! FT. INS. G.W. VOLUMES 2 ' 1C C l t `; 0. ., �+ E a-.. �•I ....d, ... . !�,• ... l3 y `', , I tit �� '-1U %El �.ilL �•Il 'R i, I 1uf?(�% <--.vlt,.. ---------- -- - -- - —.- __ - -- __ _ __ i_ --�.c•,nn ri, it ..-'..�'v.ol t� Vic. Ccnp. �t ! Type Desch 1 r,,end _C011. i'E. `CkII 1 ;0N nt,_ti F o. G" A'r,P,C.F. Sr,e ; h?SF• - - IT' AIt 18 6 SS1 2 �" ;:c rocl: with 7 15 13 brown sand fill 23 19 4 17 17 36 — 27.0' Moderately hard to vc-.ry hard 31 25 S52 � 6 tan s,:ndy li.,r-rock 25 27 50 ' 26 16 8 15 1.7 31 - _ 27 21 -- . SS3 10 - 1 9 i - _ 34 - _ 40 - SS4_ l 15._ 3S5 20 3S6 25 - SS7 30 SS8 35 7.0' Firm tan and brown silica sand 8.0' Firm tan limesand with rock fragments - — I q- �S. 40 _ _ — — — — — Continued on page 2 TYPE OF SAHPLE 0. -DISTURBED U.L.-VI.DIST. LINER S.T.-SHELUY TUBE S.S. -SPLIT SFGGN R.C.-;,:,:r. C^RE Standerd Per.etrcticn Teat - Diiviny 2" OD Scnplur V With OINLR- 1:0: m;,,et Fciiins 30"; Count P;-40 At 6" Ir.ter.ols 16 ]18_]21 39 18 I 9 I 8 ( 17 N 15 10. 10 ?0. 6 11 - GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT 19 FT. 55 INS. G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. INS. G.W. AFTER COMPLETION FT. INS. G.W. AFTER HRS. FT. INS. G.W. VOLUMES 84�21 �:. , L L '4 f. T I( 10 ;6 L I F V. U E, I ,d P 1 F t P.C.F. S -,,I, P 5 F C('1) t i T0 I P r om i a e Tan 1 1-1 e n d I I r o c rn ell t s 2 ..10 45 2 7.0' %'f,ry to ir)(,F,(, tan !;il Ica ! .,nd SS11 50 9.0' Hard to very 1-.;lrd tan sandy 1iinerock SS12. 55 -S13 J 60 TYPE OF SAMPLE D. —DISTURBED U.L.—UNDIST. LINER S.T. —EMELOY TUBE S.S. —SPLIT Lr'00N R.C.—ROCK CORE OThER— .-.nd of Boring: 60.0v i 6 4 9 16 10 12 2) 2 25 21 29 28 50 Respectfully submitted: GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. INS. G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. INS. A. T. Avila, P.E. G.W. A;7TER COMPLETION FT. INS. Standold Pcntl,coian Test — Driving 2" OD Sr—pler 11 with G.W. AFTER MRS. 84-T217. INS. 1409 ticm:. at Foiling 30"; Count V.,de At 6" Intervals G.W. VOLUMES 1 '1 r r7 r l r r t' .: t .. C' 2 1� �;: t r i.,n ,, . v.,r'r , 'v.nl U�r. Cc p. -St. T)p• f`r;th 1 . d << II_ I?f .rl;r i C.`1: n rn. G N't. P.CF S• 37 23 I ' I SS1 2 6" r- Gray null r-.a rl & l; 1 k f i] 1 23 31 46 - I 4 59'-5" ",oderately 1::ird to tr ry hl-.rd ! — tan sandy Iirtcr'ocl, with 1 ra( es 1 25 24 60 - t t of coral rock at c'.t jet lis of Z 9 I 10 SS2 11 G 35'+ ) 0 1 16 20 - 8 SS3 10 SS4 15 SS5 20 SS6 25 SS7 30 SS8 -35 YContinued on page 2 `,0I 15 �0 23 35 _ 20 20 18 20 38 - - - 1-8 8 9 - -- - 13 7 - ----- -- 6 13 13 8 - - 11 6 6 --- 6 12 _ ---. -- -- - - -- No---- Recovery - �-- — TYPE OF SAMPLE GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS D. —DISTURBED G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT 17 FT. 2 INS. U.L.—UNDIST. LINER G.W. ENCOUIITEREO AT FT. INS. S.T.—SHELBY TUBE G.W. AFTER COIAPL ETION FT. INS. S.S. -SPLIT SPOON R.C.—ROCK CORE Sw-,detd Perettotirn Test — Driving 2" OD Sctr-plot I' With G.W. AFTER HPS. FT. IN$. OTHER— 160Y He.au.et ralliny 50"i Ccunt ii:.ie At 6" Intervals G.W. VOLUMES IIIC. ,.�.IL f _ �i':i• ':�� d r•,.' �, 'C �i r• G F c :F 1 11 4 .1 �I y i 1 „c_�'•.. ..,'. .' .•r..c:r� r .:.ir St rc c•t y i 2-16-76 t G:v n�LI� � 141F- �<<.r.c „Fv' l Lle - - - — - - - - - -- - -- -- 5nil_ e,�-Ciltl'1 ICN - -- -- �; .. n . , F ,,. G" r,,.rr Ir - -- - -- Na,v.aI U c, cC -.P r Wt. P.C.F . -,_ ., F'Sr. Continued from p, ,fie 1 - Tan handy 1 imerock and coral — -- - - 84 26 rock i SS9 40 17 60 43 , i 29 41 SS103 45 38 79 -SS-1-1 10- 11 - -- - - !� SO 2.1 32 l 18 14 SS12: 55 15 29 100- SS1' 60 N0 Fr-covery -- -- End of Boring: 60.0' - - - - TYPE OF SAMPLE Respectfully submitted: GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS O. -DISTURBED G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. IN U.L.-UNDIST. LINER G.W. ENCOUNTEREO AT FT. IN S•T.-SHELBY TUBE A. T. G.W. AFTER COMPLETION FT. IN S.S. -SPLIT S:•OON %Vt?11a, P.E. R.C.-,..00K r.(.RE Stc •lard Pe--'!,I;cn Test - Driving 2" OD Sampler V With G.W. AFTER HRS. IN 84-21 OTHER- 140: He to Falling 30"; Co..r.l Mr+le At 6" Intervals G K• VOLUMES `�% . �� tirt ' 17-1f' arI I I V. `. 'I , in , c -. .. - - I II Type ('.pth 1.'yrnd S.OII { r 1�1r'I IC;;Id Pic —s fo. t` +e.P.C.F. e ,e.c4 %SF. SS1 2 4 SS2 6 8 SS3 SS4 10- 15 SS5 20 Grcy r:.3rly iiid r,nd 1 -,eroc1` 6 5 18 f ill 4 1-41-36 15 28.5' Modpratrly h;-,rd to cxtr(mc- 21 I hard t n !-;:ndy 1irr'rc.,cl, 371 44 _ __ 40- 39 U04 i,8 23 19 21 42 - 23 19 -- - - - - --- - - 12 2 0 31 - - - 13 18 18 36 14 I 8 ---6 _ 14 - - S56 25 - --5 - - 11 SS7 30 6 12 _ - -- 5.5' Firm tan and gray silica - - - - -- - ---- --- - - --- sand -- - -- -- ---- SS8 35- 9 -- 20 3.0' Extremely hard ;rey _ coral rock 46 42� SS9 -40 -- 32 - - 74 - ---- -- -- - End of Boring: 40.0' — TYPE OF SAMPLE Respectfully Submitted: GROUND WATER OBSERVATIC NS O. —DISTURBED G.W. ENCOUNTEREO AT 14 FT. 0 IN U.L.—UNOIST. LINER G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT FT. IN S.T. —SHELBY TUBE � f �' r•Veljjja, P.E. G.W. AFTER COMPLETION FT. IN S.S. —SPLIT :PC,ON A. T R.C.—ROCK CtiRE St—dord Penel•olion Test — Driving 2" OD Sempler V With G.W. AFTER HRS. FT.� iN OTHER _ 140: Hc_-.er Falling 30"; Count A1ede At 6" Intervals G.W. VOLUMES 84-2'11../ �- MTE — 101 `-� , -19 i6•,:-.F r•t ' 1. '�- 1 ! �' -' -- - t - - - ---- - __..._ .� _ 1 01 �i�,r ? 5 F T�I,� DeL�h i _•:rncr _ —-----r:Qll [' `r i.l{• I�rt� ['I .t �r,i G.. x,t.i�.�.- F. �r,.n,•S,i'SF. t 47 2.8 SS1 2 l'-11" Grey r;::;Iliy r-,ar1 rand 21. 17 49 -- - 1iw-rock fill 60 38 30 68 _. 4 29.5' Moderatc,ly }lard to vtiry _�� hard t.3n e.anriy 7 y r rock 39 30 - SS2 - 6 _ 33 36 63 _ ; 31. 28 8 30 27 58 1 - - 31 21 -- SS3 - - 10 29 24 50 - SS4 - 15 SSS 20 SS6 25 SS7 ' 30 SS8 35 _SS9 40 8.5' Very loose to loose tan silica sand End of Boring: 40.0' 20 20 -- - 16 . 36 - - - - - - 17 19 - -- - - - 1.3 32 13 6 - - 8 14 10 6 12 18 _ . _8 4_ 2 1 _ 3. TYPE OF SAMPLE O.-DISTURBED Respectfully submitted: �� GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT 18 FT. 8 IN; U.L.-Ut.'DIST. LINER S.T.-SHEL6Y TL'SE S.S. -SPLIT 5r0014 R.C.-ROCK CGRE OTHER_ MiF -�flf /- �L %'✓r A. T. AVella, P.E. S!c.idcrd Penetration Test - Dririlg 2" OD Serr.Pler V With 1lG. He r...tr Falling 30"; C,.ont M!;Je At 6" Intervals G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT G.W. AFT ER COMPLETION G.W. AFTER HRS. G.W. VOLUMES FT. IN! F T. IN! FT. 1N WON aura, ,A11: `, 7 .� -1C76 SURF 1. �.f 11. 1. V. ut f: i •) �.�i., ;.li. �: ]�Ii�:? t.Ttp! C-Ith 1�gnnct SOfI_ Ctf.`--t-HIF'IIC�1: f11�..sF.,,6" -- — f, x�.i'.f.F. - --- `_t...�g•nPSF• - -•- 1 Asplialt 41 32 SS1 2 6" Gray marly sand 24 27 56 21 30 4. 39'-5" Moderately hard to vary hard 25 33 55 y; tan sandy limerock (with fra- -. ___ - -- - - - nr•nts of coral rorl: at bottom _ 37 ( 26 _ SS2 6 depths) - 32 35 58 29 26 - - 8 28 23 54 - -- - 24 21 SS3 10 28 30 49 19 14 -- SS4 15- --16 --- - 30_ - - - --- 12 6 SS5 F 2-0 9 15 - - 11 9 SS6 25 7 _ 1-6 - --- - _ -- SS7 30 10 _ 18 - -- -- ----- -- - - --_ -_ 17 8 - SS8 35 - 9 17--- --- -- �_— 27 12 - - ---- SS_9 40 _ _ _ 12 24 End of Boring: 40.0' TYPE OF SAMPLE Respectfully submitted: GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS D. —DISTURBED U.L.—UNDIST. LINER �w /J / G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT 19 FT. 3 INS. FT. INS. S.T.—SHELBY TUBE —SPLIT SPOON /L /�� (� A T. hVe11 P.E. G.W. AFTER C014PLETION FT. INS. S.S. R.C.—ROCK CORE t Stcrdatd Peretrotion Test — Driving i" OD Scx+ler 1' With G.W. AFTER HRS. FT. INS. /� OTHER— 140; Fa,rer Fulling 30"; Count lAude At 6" Inlervols G.W. VOLUMES Q V 4-21.7 t MTF — In$ -ii_ _ 2-]5-76 '''kl Ii1 lv Ll.,c Ct. p '.Ty;. ._,t,h 1� ••,d .`.Gill C,r .F•.'i'flc)N .,� _. r„�.. wr.P.C.F. St,�n:•},FSF. Ar.�,haIt 36 58 - -' SSl 2 6" T,ilneroc k fit1 6 28 84 9 21 4- 29 1-5" Mud erat (-ly 1).-i-d to c .tI-L PIy 23 26 44 - -" - - - hare] tan randy ] 17.c•reck - - -- - -- ---- - !, 5 !,1 --- - SS2 _ 6 39 35 - Ro -__...- - --- 1 - -- 34 31- -- - _ - -- --- - - -- 8 27 30 58 -310- 6 23 - -- - S. S _2 43 SS4 SS5 1 20 SS6 j 25 SS 7 30 SS8 35 SS9 40 10.0' Firm to hard tan si lic:: sand End of Boring; 40.0' 11 13 -- - --- - - 6 12 -- -� - - 9 G' - - - 7 13 12 _. - 8 - 8 16 5 ---5 7 - -- - 12 -- -- — -- ---24 --20 - 13-- -- --- --33 - •-- . -- — TYPE OF SAMPLE - GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS D. -DISTURBED U.L.-SHEL T. LINER S.T. -SMEL6Y TUBE S•S. -SPLIT SPOON R.C.-POCK !K LORE Respectfully -submitted: � t ;� � e.TAVe S'andord Penetration Teo - DriYing Simpler V With i" OD S? G.W. ENCOUNTERED AT G.W. ENCOUAFTER C MPIL TI G.W. AFTER COftPlLT10N G.W. AFTER FIRS. 20 FT. 3 INS FT. INS FT. INS FT. I/IS 07y+fR- -- --� 1<Q� Nem^.er felling 30"- Count Mode At 6" 1Icreols G.W. VOLUMES -_ __ HIGHEST "HURRICANE` TIDE • EL 10.161 (SEPT. ISBIt, 1946,FROM FLOOD MARKS.) NOTE: U.S. ENGINEER DEPARTMENT REPORTS FOLLOWING TYPICAL TIDE ELEVATIONS FOR SEPT. IS S 16, 1945' AT MIAMI BEACH • EL 3.5 AT MOUTH OF MIAMI RIVER • EL.6.7 AT POINT 3 611 SOUTH OF MIAMIs EL.13.S NEAT WGNEST ' HURRICANE" TIDE a EL 5.57 � OTHER `HURRICANE TIDES' a EL. 3 13 EL 3.03 I EL 4 26 HIGHEST TIDE OTHER THAN `HURRICANE` - EL 3.64' OTHER HIGH TIDES. EL 3 48 EL 3.41 I EL-3 t6' EL, 3.24' MEAN HIGH WATER • ELA 56 (A►PROX ) MEAN SEA LEVEL a EL.0163 M -Sp -L CITY DATUM MEAN LOW WATER a — 0.937 LOWEST TIDE a EL.--I.SI' (FEB. E-9,19611 55 = (OCT. 1@,1950) 3.1 a (OCT. b, 194B) 3.4' (SEPT.11,1048) 2.12 (OCT. 6,1941) 3.9 t (OCT. tt,1949) 3.61 (OCT. I5,1947) — (OCT. 14, 1943) — (NOV. B . 194E) 3.1 ' (DEC 9. 1946) I FOR BISCAYNE SAY AT COCONUT GROVE. FOR THE PERIOD FROM NOV $.1940 (WHEN GAGE WAS FIRST PUT INTO OPERATION) TO FEB. t4.1951. t FOR OCEAN AT MIAMI BEACH, REPORTED BY U.B. ENGINEER DEPT. ALSO REPORTED BY THEM WAS ESTIMATED HURRICANE TIDE OF EL. 4.7 AT MIAMI BEACH, NOW 4, 1935 (GAGE WAS OUT). 3 FOR OCEAN AT MIAMI HARBOR ENTRANCE. TIDE LEVELS BASED ON MIAMI CITY DATUM FROM RECORDS OF U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, EXCEPT AS NOTED DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA 84-2 .- f MAY 1955 p CN, -- - HIGHEST `HURRICANE` TIDE • EL 10.16t (SEPT. IS1116,1945, FROM FLOOD MARKS.) NOTE! LS ENGINEER DEPARTMENT REPORTS FOLLOWING TYPICAL TIDE ELEVATIONS FOR SEPT. IS 6 16, 1945' AT MIAMI BEACH • EL 3.5 AT MOUTH OF MIAMI RIVER • EL.6.7 AT POINT 5 MI. SOVTN OF MIAMI • EL. 13.5 NEXT ►+,CHEST ' HURRICANE" TIDE • EL 5.87' OTHER "HURRICANE' TIDES' • EL. 5.15 EL 5 05 EL 4 16' --- NIGMEST TIDE OTHER THAN "HURRICANE" = EL 3.641 OTHER NIGH TIDES. EL 3 461 EL 3.41 1 EL.3 !6' EL. 3.241 — MEAN MICH WATER • El 1.56 (APPROX.) MEAN SEA LEVEL • EL.O.163 CITY DATUM MEAN LOW WATER • - 0.937 1 LOWEST TIDE • EL. -1.511 (Fal. t-9,1951) 5.5= (OCT. 18,1950) 3. 1 (OCT. 5, 1948) 3.41 (SEPT. 11,1948) 2,11 (OCT. 6,1041) 3.0 (OCT.lL,1949) 3.6t (OCT. 15,1947) - (OCT. 14, 1943) - (NOV. 4, 1940 3.1 t (DEC 6, 1946) I FOR BISCAYNE SAY AT COCONUT GROVE , FOR THE PERIOD FROM NOV 0,1940 ( WHEN GAGE WAS FIRST PUT INTO OPERATION) TO FEB.14,1981. I FOR OCEAN AT MIAMI BEACH$ REPORTED BY U.S. ENGINEER DEPT. AL60 REPORTED BY THEM WAS ESTIMATED HURRICANE TIDE OF EL.4.7 AT MIAMI BEACH, NOV 4, 1935 ("BE WAS OUT). I FOR OCEAN AT MIAMI HARBOR ENTRANCE. TIDE LEVELS BASED ON MIAMI CITY DATUM FROM IiECORDS OF U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY$ EXCEPT AS NOTED DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA N MAY 1955 84-21 0 PITTSL3L t <GH TESTING LAB -\ATORY IS TAI1l I I. tD 1141 1HAIA11 FLORIDA 33142 Al A MUTUAL ►*OTtCT'7N TO CLitNTi. TNt I116LIC ANO 0UR1fLVt1, ALL RCICIRT1 AMC 1VFu1 T ?To Al TNt CONF ITt(NTIAL ►NUJ►TRT♦ OF CL1t AIT1, AND AUTN0RtTAT16N FOR FUFLICATI0N OF 1TA1/u/NT1. C0N�LUIIt• l OR CTTRACTS PAOLA OR R(VARUING OUR Rt►CRT• 11 RT 1tR VCO ►CNOI NG OUR WMI" tN APPROVAL. 3901 N.W. 29th Avenue Miami, Florida 33142 -- MA 3550 Lab #5397 10-G-80 Continental Services 2951 S. Bayshore Drive Suite BE Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 Attn: 11r1 Peter Sibley REFERENCE: Soil Borings - Oak & Hary - Coconut Glove Gentl omen: In accordance with your authorization %;e have made soil borings at the referenced project. Attached are the boring logs. Borings were performed in accord with the ASTI1 D-153G Method. Soil borings were made at tile site at the locations indicated on the enclosed Boring Plot Plan. The soil borings were drilled with a power drilling rig to perform standard penetration tests for determination of sub -soil relative density. Standard penetration tests %,ere rhade at frequent intervals of depth, not more than five feet apart, by driving a standard 2" OD, 1-3/8" ID split barrel penetration spoon into undisturbed soil by blows from a 140 pound drop %•.,eight harmer falling 30 inches. The penetration resistance, in blows per six inches of penetration was logged and appears on the boring logs in this report. Recovered samples %•,ere used for visual sub -soil identification. Samples will be retained by us for a period of sir, rhonths from the above date, and then discarded unless otherwise advised by the client in writing. lie appreciate the opportunity to have been of service and hope that ou %-.ill call us again. Respectfully submitted, PITTSBURGH TESTING LABORATORY 94 t,l)-�`- e(DQ Jottn 14. Harllee, Vice President JW11/ is cc: 2 Client 1 Jim Marks 14560 N.W. 60 Ave, Suite B, Miami Lakes, F1 33014 1 Baldwin-Sackman, 3298 Clary Street #2, Coconut Grove, F1 33133 1 MA 84-21'7. 1 im AT ;4. , • 2.S' I x.._........_.,.-..•Y�_ � .__�._:. �»:.... -GIs . -i�'.. �;� -� _ _ _ .i " i.:. WS�i' � F!•rweD I i' M.r. �..a y �;t ' "•: ti'�- , ?•_ f .-; i4''ji is N51DOIt ' �--••�--- t �.� :i �..b{, /' + `rya<i i►.��.ir.:"•��*1 r ' � w. �:: a;.► a.rG•-i: t' � •• .� it �'•, '4^r • - w -. . i -- :. eta' Ri ` - t - ..� G tot.^ ; tp a � w•1 r.s ` : �.'q".♦ *77.��n �-� i� - �� Q% • - _ rjF • `• , •- s t `�• a Y� 'W`F. � J t•• r••�'� a'1� j�Q� ` •� a `••� i a ��'t.1•�y -��. + � FI • r - ap a `1 p•'µ n+->G:.�. cehT'� }r-'-.• r' T /( I r � � t'y^- f 1�t t1S.i cJ►a ait 10Jt i e++a r+•.r . • 1f1rl.�%• •r . • �•. M= :.;..- .a, . J.r K.r7n ' '•J., -, . . dw ~-,- 1 �niie•04' .t' n •\ _.. `....•r•� .w .: 4;.. ' eirl w �.0 r,_ - . . ,' ,•i' t. q r•r•• .•.;.s.••�y:+.i Wit'',. %....�{ •. F*+a. _+.. - ' ram'.. " y r ,.f .':.I •+Do.11,`. 't e✓j ipa•'• f'• M1i.te-`':.•�'�. • 'R •,•, � ' ,� Q 6wt[.w•_ ,*•n {±, � ry .;,,• -� ^.. �! .•Y :�'f r`.s .j Z[ �+•. Ft :'.*'.1.� `.. �:I n '9'•, r- ., ttr -- 121i[or1: Ile•rem t •' 'yc t'•w•: `. �'' �� _. ►.}� •-.: �.�.,, • fy,�n;.: .tl"'K +t .tpl;�y.. a[• r '.. C.4UG� � ' ' .�.�.•�•�-.• .i•• -r .i.• �' /( i' w: r� .. .• ' -`J':� � t' ' - ! + J • j i �.4.•.[.,i•�•�''s: �i.--•• t 1.:..M tw. r � •'4 i.: � • a `� �• .:• .. H : �Sr.Jt...�a�� :•T f1M.f .) .` :. t C''f, fit. i .: _ w•` `7. � w'/•' •[ {•,••w.... ' ♦,• + •.:•::�'. w•i ` � > ..•�:_•7''"�'- aw.•..'`�'f;} 7 a! '+•'.��• ':,+tom • -f�' � [[ `rt^°' a�,. ••...�- ... �,,• r'"� ',•~` '�,1•`�Y��..R' ••i' �j ••>1.1 �.�ai . �++fit •;�:: a. �,"i.• * r. �`, ... .r. .t- •�,• �� • •� �{`...{�,vY, yO �j;°t�n�.i.[�.tj+yF+�.ia±:.'i%tC��1C.3.1�1�'lrr�'Y�•.;..�.it. . `tt L�' c ~ •� 7 •. -. � t ,�.+:.y �.'L- v � t.• } i• •w¢« �'i{ t,:iy"'' ".-mil ti'a, is i.. '}''ti.`f � % . :• `• `. � � , • !-�!(1J':}I+,F SA + e�4 w� �i ' jY�. •. ` Q%�'• �.�[{E•'''�'�+� �} �:�v �.C• � Ty� / —.--......... .r.- �..,.-� �-- — 5-T._____ 84-217 .' PITT IF ',RGH TEST ING LABOR "ITORY LOG OF BORING Jc b tJo. VA 3550 Client Continental . Services __ -_ Protect Proposed Office aldrf 0 Mary & Oak Location of boring: See Plot Plan Water Level Time Icimediate _ _ Date - --10-640 - -- _- - -- ------ - Boring No. 1 - Date 10_-6-80_ Sheet _ 1 -- of-2- Type of Boring 01526 _ Rig CME 55-1 Casing used... HA Size . __Ki Drilling mud used NO Boring begun __ - - _Boring completed Zo"_"$� Ground Elevation _ EXi Sting- referred to -- -- --- -- Datur Field Party:___Lachuk & Alvarez o'o! -_1_ J-- ° E A1_2 CL --_1- 0-1 ° a E a� o m 117/15 E a °s w.� o" - ° C ono N `.; o a -- ! a DESCRIPTION -E o'DEPTH Q d N �N Soil type, color, texture, consistency, sampler driving notes, , o-0 blows per foot on casing, depths wash water lost, observed t b i FEET o fluctuations in water level, notes on drilling ease, etc. U - = I__-__Asphal_pavement-"over dense-Timeroc�ase-- - t-.416-di um, _t n-sandy-Timerock-- s - -- - -- - -- ---- --IIenSe; -tan san3y Time rock--_-- -- - --- —r- 3 - ---- -- -- -- - --- - - - - -- - - 4 - - — - --- - — - _ — ---- --- _ --- - -- - -- ----- - s- ( --- - - -- -- _,_Dense, tan sandy-1 imerock --- - -- - - - - - 7 - C - Dense,- ten sandy T�merock �- 9 - -- ------.--__� ---- --- 10 2-3 6/6 /24 -- -- 102 -- — - 4/25 4-5 3/24 - - A ---- I _ 105 - 5-6 --- 6 221 / 107 6-7 7-8 8-9 18/20 _ 0/19 17/18 109 9-10 16/15 --+— ---- -- - -- �- is `-- 13 - 14 --- - - --- -- - _—A ---- -- - -- / 12 - -- 115 15-16 18/22 1 S - bense , sandy__1imerock _ 16- 17 - le 19 20 1 � Engineer- __- 84-217 Pli Z S ' RGH TESTING LAB ' TORY LOG OF BORING Jo- No. 11A 3550 Client Continental Services Protect Proposed Office Bldg 0 Mary & Oak Location of Boring: Water Level Time Da to Boring No.. 1 -Date _-. 10-6-80 - -_ Sheet 2 of_, 2 Type of Boring --- Casing used _ Size Drilling mud used Boring txgun_ _ ___Boring completed_._.-_ Ground Elevation _ -referred to..__ Field Party: o a 6 u Z n. o o 0- °E` E'0 C N o° '"th o ° c m o a;, V1U o� Q s E oN F`o_ a I o a;DEPTH i cn„ 1N °� FEET I J a DESCRIPTION Soil type, color, texture consistent sari ter driving notes 0 j YP , . . y, p g , -' blo.-.s per foot on casing, depths wash water lost, observed o , fluctuations in water level, notes on drilling ease, etc. / 15 -- _ - -� ---t- 2 o - t - L- ----- ---- - - -------- -- _Dense_, t_an sander 1 imerock________ 2 22 - L-- - --- - - -- - - - — --- / 13 -- --- -_ s 24-- --- 125 25-26 8/ 18 _ -- - 25 -_-- 26 - I - - --- --------- ---- -- ------ --Dense-,-tan - -. - - - - - - - - - --- - -------- san- dy 1 imerock- -- -` -- - - - 27 - - - - ----- -- T-1 28 -...r.. 29 - - -- -- _ - -- -- - -- --- - -- — - - 130 30-31 5/26 --- - _ -- - ----_ - - 30 32 - 33 --------- - - -- --- -_ _� ense, fineray_sand & sandy limerock ` --- - -- - -- -- - -- ----- ---- --- - __ _ - -- _ 34 /9 3s - - 135 35-36 10/11 17 - 36 - Medium, fine tan_sand i - /5 37 38 - - 39- — 139 39-40 7/8 40 Medium fine tan sand —End of oring 40.0 t Engineer °J' S PITTS 'RGH TESTING LABOF STORY LOG OF BORING Job No. M 35jo Client__Continental Services__ ProiectProposed Office Bldn 0 Mary & Oak Location of boring: See Plot Plan Water Level 15. 75 15. 70' -- ---- �Irimediate— 72 _hours 10-3-80 10-6-30 - Time _ Date Boring No. 2 Date 10-3-80 Sheet 1__ot_ 2- Type of Boring D1586 Rig UT 55-1 1 _- Casing used- {IA _Size _ _3'•i. Drilling mud used-(JO Boring begun _ 13-3=__.Boring completed-_10-3-80 Ground Elevation _-.Existinrg referred to — - -- - - --- - ---Datum Field Party:-- Lachuk & Alvarez 0 N Z E t o o o a: o�"` .o " a cLn m c \ a N C °` o _ { , d s E l o a o . � - E `o ° I u-a U � J ►- . I DEPTH j IN FEET a DESCRIPTION u j Soil type, color, texture, consistency, sampler driving notes, Qan=" �' blov;s per foot on casing, depths wash water lost, observed o fluctuations in water level, notes on drilling ease, etc. 0- ---- ---- -- ---- - - - -- - ,^_ ,- _` Asphal t_avement over dense 1 baSe - -- - -- - -- - - --- - -- -- - -- --- - - Very dense,--ta-n sandyl_imerock --- -- - ----- - -- -- - _— -- - — --Dnse, tan sandy limc e rok e -Dense, tan s a--n dy -11 n. eroc k -- - ----- t Very dense, tar? sandy 1 imerock -- - - - ense; 1:an sandy Ti_merock ---- --- 0-1 4/15 — 1-2 40/40 z-- s _ - a- 5 _ b- ( i e - ! I 9 _ to — 12 13 14 15 16 17 is lv 20 i 202 2-3 9/41 3-4 2/38 205 5-6 6120 6-7 17120 207 7-8 8"9 63/22 6/27 209 9.10 �5/23 + --. -- - - -- -- - — - - __ ----- - ------ /20 215 15-16 4/25 Dense, tan sandy iimerock — - Engineer - - 84-'211, . ``."' .:`.'.. ' • P11 T5f- 'RGH TESTING LABCUF NTORY -��-- eN 9*� LOG OF BORING Job No. '1A 3550 Client Continental Services Project proposed Office Bldg L) Mary & Oak Location of boring. Water Level Time -- -- - — - - --- --- ------ -- Date Boring 'Jo. 2 Dato _10-3-80 _ Sheet 2_of—2 Type of Boring _-_ --Rig - _ - Casing used Size ---Drilling mud used -.- Boring begun _ ---__---Boring completed.__—_ Ground Elevation _ referred to- _ - -___ ------ _ _ Datum Field Party:------------_________ 0 rn a.s �" O U c 4 E o yr o° = o ;� 0.0 C E �- qA o a a o e'^ c m o V E o s IDZ- p CL 0 o I s E i DEPTH o " " IN . o oA FEET r° c J J ( DESCRIPTION c� Soil type, color, texture, consistency, sampler driving notes, blo:�:s per foot on casing, depths wash water lost, observed N I fluctuations in water level, notes on drilling ease, etc. - - 20-21 _ _ -- --- _ -- - - ---- - -- 25-26 /I3 3/ 17 _ - - - - - - --- - - --- -- - - -- - - - - _ _ ---- 20 = _ 2 t - - 22 - 23 _ 24 25 - _ 26 _ 28 - 29- - 30 _31 - - 33 34 35 - 36 _ 37 3 a ► - 4° t ------.-- --- - - - -- ---D '- - -- -ense,_- - tan- - san---dy_-- -- 1 imerock- - - - - -- ---- - - -- - - -- - - - -- - _ - - -- -- - --- -- --- - - - - -- _ _. Dense, tan san0y__1 ireerock__ - - , - -- - -- - -- - --- ----- _ 220 -- -- 15 8/17 --- -- 225 /13 - -- 230 0- 1 5/16 - _ --------- -- -- - - --- Dense,_ fine tan -sand__& sandy 1_imeroc}: - - - - _ . __-------_ --_- - - -- _-_ - /10 -- -- - -- ---- - - - 235 35-36 7/15 Dense,_fine tan sand & sandy_itnerDC -- - /18 139; 239 39-40 4/25 Dense, tan sandy Iimrg —End-of--Roving 40.0' Engineer N4--ZlY , PIT TS RGH TESTING LABO�; TORY LOG OF BORING Jot, N:o. 0A 35: O client_ _Continental Services - _ Proiect __Proposed Offi ce_-_B1 dg 0 Mary & Oat, _ _ocation of Boring: See Plot Plan Vater Level rime Immediate _ )ate I0-6-80 _— Boring No. 3 Date 10-6-80 Sheet--l—of-2 Type of Boring 01526 Rig CME 5571_____ Casing used HA Size 3". Drilling mud used iiQ- Boring tx_�gun 10-6-80 Boring completed _10-6-80_ Ground Elevation Existing referred to._- - _ ---Datum Field Party: Lachuk & Alvarez ----- A! 84-217. , PI-T-T Vi 'RGH TESTING LABCI�,,r " TORY e, LOG OF BORING .lob No. MA 3550 Client Continental Services n brnnnenj nffiro nirin ii t.ia►-v P. n:kL, roject .-. ...1,..—.. I - ., I -v ..... i _ocation of Boring: Water Level Time Date Boring No. 3 D. Type of P,or irng Casing used - - Boring begun _ Ground Elevation Field Party: _- _-- tp 10-6-80 Sheet 2_ of 2 Rig -- Size - -Drilling mud used- . -__— Boring completed _ referred to --- - — --Datum e o .� `o ° r n o a a DESCRIPTION n� n ° E» �E „ o oL ce=o:DEPTH. „ („ I 6,10 IN u Soil type, color, texture, consistency, sampler driving notes, o E E=_ ° o� ° i FEET -' blows per foot on casing, depths wash water lost, observed I JJ o fluctuations in water level, notes on drilling ease, etc. u w �a cD o p �° : ILI), 20 -----._E - 320 20-21 7/8 _ - 2 - I medi um,_tan -sandy__ 1 i_merock ----- -- -- --- - 22 �- -- --- -, --�- 23 1 5] �- - --- ----� - - -- - -- -1= 2s = - -- - - - - ---- - - - - - -- --- 325 25-26 16/7 �_ Medium, tan sandy 1 imerock 27 28 - - --. - --- + ---'- 29 �- --- -- - - - - - 30 -- -- - --- 330 4/5 -- 30-31 31 --Loose, fine tan sand & Iimerock-_ __ -.-- _.._ 32- � i -- �- 3 �- _ -- - - - - -- ----- --- -. _. --- --- - - --- - --- 34 -- 35 - - - -- - - -- -- - - 335 35-36 4/5 _- + 36 _Lo9se,-fine tan -sand-1 1_imerock— - --------------------- - 3 7 - 1------ -- - - --- --- - - - - — -- - 12 - �- - 3 9 - - --..- -- - --- - - - -- — 339 39-40 11/ 15_ 40 -_ eddi u , tan _sa ddy j imerock----___ End oT I3ori ng0.0 Engineer-____ r1i .... �. .._ ,: Rp.,y'i1`,;t.�yM+]. wx'S1 .D; .: 4.!Y4°'=T•f' I `-n"• '''r ' '' PIT-11S 'RGH TESTING LABOr ' TORY LOG OF BORING .lob No. MA 3550 Client Continental Services brnnnef1A (lffiro Rhin H Mary P. n;& ocation of boring: later Level — •ime - ---- -- - Boring No. 3 Date 10-6-80 -Sheet 2_ . of 2 Type of Boring Rig Casing used Size - Drilling mud used Boring begun __ Boring completed Ground Elevation -referred to _ _ --Datum Field Party: u Z a^o e I M o = oDESCRIPTION Eo DEPTH Q �' ; o " � � M � IN I � Soil type, color, texture, consistency, sampler driving notes, O c 0U CL o E`~� oi m ,a o= _• I °�' FEET -' blows per foot on casing, depths wash water Post, observed o (o : fluctuations in water level, notes on drilling ease, etc. y ,p o o `�� / 6 2 o - ! - _ - -- - _ -- _ - ------ - _ Medium, imerock _ 21 __ _tan _sandy_-1 - -- - 22- 1__—_ 23 - -- --- --+ — - . 5�---5 - -- 4 - -- --- 2 - - - - _ J 325 25-26 6/7 - i I_ t`ledlum,_ tan sandy .limerock - - - 26- - - -- --- --- - - ---- - I i --�-- - -- - - - -- -- - - - Y - 27 - - - - -- - -- - -- - -- ---- --- - ----- -- -- ----- -- - -- - - -..._ 28--- -�_- - - - - --� 2 9 l - -_ - - - - -- -- -- ----- /3 4/5 FJ330 _ ---t- 30 - - --- - --- _ .. - - - - - - --- - -- -- - 30-31 ------- - _ Loose,._fine tan sand & ]imerock. - 31 - I -- i- ---- 33 r - - - - - - /4 35 _- _ _ -- --- ----- -. - _ 335 35-36 4/5 - -- --------- _----------__ - ►- - ]imerock__ - - _ -_ 6 __Loose, _ine_tan-sand_.& 3 _ 38 /12 - - !- 39 r- --- -- --- - -- ----_ - _ - ----- -- �_--_-M-eddiu _ - - ----� - -339 39-40 11/15 _._ _� _ _ _ 40 -E tall-sa ddy 1 imerock----- --�- o� Dorl �0.0 nd ng -------- I ROW, *WWWWWW_ Daa , & Moore I 350 wrct carni- GJL 8—le"atd Plaza 6 Suite 201 t Boca Ratnn Fl,-nda 33412 i30.5 392.907(� Janes A. Cummings, Inc. 2425 E. Commercial Boulevard Suite u02 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 3330L Attention: Mr. James A. Cummings Gentlemen: January 11 , 19F.4 Estimate of Steady -State Pumping Requirements for Foundation Dewatering Grove Square Project Coconut Grove, FIlr-.ra At the request of Mr. Jack Brennan of Griffin Devatering Corporation we have estimated steady-state put- pir,c reciuirements for foundation dewatF-ring at the Grove Square Froject it CciCWi Ut Grave, Florida. We hr:vc t.asec our estimate or, information provided by Griffin Dewaterinc Corporation, This information includes drawing of the proposed dewatering syster: ( Drawing Number D-83-32) ; Rc-port of Geotechnical ( Exploration, prepared by Lay. Engineering Testing Company, dated December 8, 1982; measurements of the pumping rate and drawdown level made January 2 through 3, 1984 by Griffin Dcwatering Corporation; and other miscellaneous data. The Grove Square site is underlain by the Biscayne Aquifer, made up of alternating deposits of limestone, sandstone, and unconsolidated quartz sand. The uppermost unit of the site is the NSiami Limestone, composed of moderately hard to soft, slightly porous to very porous, oolitic to slightly oolitic limestone. The surficial Miami Limestone was encountered to depths of 26 to 28 feet according to the Law Engineering Testing Report. 84--21"? 2 r 4� Mr. James A. Cumminas January 11 , 198U Dames & Moore Pare �► The Fort Thompson Formation underlies the %',iami Limestone at the site at depths of 3L to u6 feet below ground surface. The upper portion of the Fort Thompson Formation mostly consists of fine quartz sand averaging 11 feet in thickness. Underlying thc. send layer is porous to very porous limestone. The dc%%atering system consists of €-inch welipoir.,s installed into the upper sand of the Fort Thompson Formation around the approximately 800-foot perimeter of the excavation, anc another line of E-inch wellpoints throunh the r,:iddic of the excavation. In plan the area tc be dewatered measures about 145 feet by 235 fee' in areates' horizontal dimensions. - The F-inch diameter %%ellpoints are sly ;ed about, five to six feet apart. %tie understand that eater will be pu^1,_3ed to an off -site location so that recharge to the aquifer v:il; not be a problem. Static ground -water 1'1.✓•� �� elm%atior, is Inout 2 fete`, F',C:ar' Sc- "rvet O."r,I . %�,e urAerot and that at Griffin. Ue%tia�;,=rind Corporation will c,�press the around v%ater surface in the exca•,,rtior, to about elevation -10 feet VISL, mea nine_ tt-z:' a 10 foot. ci r F_ v. d ci v, n of the uroung %%atcr sor.acE 1s pianned fCir cot istrUCt10n purposes. The data obtained on January 2 throucnh 3, 198L are the most useful in estimating the pumping rate required to achieve 10 feet of drawdown. , During the above period, the wellpoint system was pumped at about 12,000 gallons per minute (gpm) for 7 hours and 45 minutes. Piezometers on the site indicated that 3.25 feet of drawdown had been obtained at the end of the 7 hour and 45 minute pumping period. Utilizine the specific capacity information developed during the short-terrr pumping test and the drawdown versus yield relationship (for a water table aquifer) contained in Reference 1, we estimate that the 12,000 gpm flo%% obtained at roughly 32 percent of the required drawdown represents about 53 percent of the d maximum effluent quantity to be withdrawn. That is, the maximum 1 estimated effluent quantity is estimated to be 1 .89^x 12,000 gpm or about I 23,000 gallons per minute to dewater the excavation to -10 feet MSL. 84-2102 F Mr. James A. Cumminc_s January 11, 1984 Pace 3 Dames & Moore Because the '.Jami Limestone cv,es much of its hia", permeability to solution features and due to the proximity of Fiscayne day as a recharcie source, this number should be viev ed -s an estimate. Unanticipated factors may cause the actual pumping rate of dev.aterina to be more or less than our estimate. - 0 0 0 - Please call us if we can be of further assistance it this matter. J PH: jcs., LR3 Attachment: List of References cc: Mr. Jack Brennan Griffin Dewatering Corporation Sincerely yours, DA',1ES & 1.10ORE Thomas epner, P.E. Partner 9 ( � � 47. J. Phillip Hutton Staff Geohydrologist 84E-21'7 YGRIFFIN January 9, 1984 I 2425 East Cc-c.-.ercial Boulevard Suite 402 Fort Lauderdale, Flcrica 3330E Re: Dewaterinc--Grove Square, Coconut Gri'e, Florida Gent-Iemen: Observed volume pu.,,ped fro:. excavation. e�-,•u31ed 12, OOC Callons per minute. Draw down at crown durinc this pumping vclune ecualed 3.25 feet (elevation of original water table +2.00 Mean Sea Level to elevation -1.25 Mean Sea Level). Perimeter of exca'.aticn ap 7rc•xi"atel, SOC. feet. Voiilme/peri,"E'ter = 1"000 �''—�l V. = 1_ GI,Cr fect of perimeter. T;:e 80i' perr.ca)✓ilit� "i:" it �'_cro-.s nnr SeCOhC (CentlTe tC: S it: Second x 1C-41for the ._e;c of 1� G.P.N /Ft. Perm- witi, down. cf 3.25 = 3100 i Cron r:r Second. With this permeability the .ro,ected volume to be pumped to lower the water table 10 feet (original water table +2.00 r;si, to desired point of -8.00 MSL) equals 26 G.P.M./Ft. of Perimeter. Therefore, 26 G.P.M./Ft. x 800' of Perimeter = 20,8+ OO Q.P.M. total to be pumped. Therefore anticipated flow with 101 variation ± will be 19,000 G.F.M. to 23,000 G.P.M. Sincerely, GRIFFIN DEWATERINC CORPORATION 1 ' John A. Drennan branch Manager JAB/vn cc: C.R. Myers Frank ldinuti llo 84-21'7 � LIST OF REFERENCES and �Wls; Edgard E. Johnson, Inc. ; Saint Paul, 66; Fioure 73, p. 107. 84-ZjL7- had seen Appellant attempt to drive through the alley since the filing of Appellees' Complaint in July 1982, Mr. Mobley testified that he had never seen any other tenants use the. - alley as a thoroughfare between the two streets. (T. 125-126). - - According to Mr. Mobley, and other witnesses as well, the alleyway is paved only to the end of Appellant's property,' or to the end of Lots 25 and 26. (T. 18, 167). From the end of Appellant's property on Lot 26, to approximately Lot 28, there is some deteriorated asphalt which has been unimproved by any party to this cause. (See T. 18, 102, 188). The alley' from approximately Lot 28 through Lots 29 and 30 is unpaved and contains a:~� arge sink hole so deep and unstable that a rig taking core samples was almost lost in it. (T. 136). According to Mr. Mobley, the sink hole causes a 5 to 6 _fob change in grade at Lots 43 and 44. (T. 126, 132). In addition, the alleyway is filled with trash and underbrush which even Appellant admits is cleaned only at yearly or two year intervals. (T. 18, 102, 126, 191). As recently as July 1982, a tree was growing in the alleyway. (T. 126). In addition to the trash, vegetation, and a tree, this 10 foot wide alley has three Florida Power and Licht utility poles(_'_ which encroach into it at the junction of Lots 29 and 30, at the junction of Lots 28 and 27, and at mid lot 28. It also has a number of air conditioners which encroach into the alley from the sides of Mr. Mobley's building. (T. 102, 126, 129). -6- FINE JACOHSON Blom BUXrx Co]Le & SIMON, P. A. 64'-21. 7, , 2401 DOUGLAS ROAD • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33134 • TELEPHONE 13051_446-2200__ _ - -- r `► ! 126 A. Prior to appruximately July 1982, the 111 . vc•hicui,,ir--ti,�-r,_• wjs nc, vc•I,1cular traffic l.rior to 11 t In��•. At that time: after some things wart vt-j f i-ov, the alley, the Defendant started driving Vulf:swayun camper bus from his building westerly to -t If-•i-t and I sa4: lain, ao this un st.-vural times-- I.,I I-jCt',,'S1c,n:, s(, 1 dol,'t kl,ch that l,c itdd oricinated '- I 1 t ! i ur, ills l-,ui 1c:lny o2 i.:ai.- Stre,-.t, Lut he's the �'t:t,lClc 11vE' suct, usi• the alluy in its entirety. uuscrli)c• fui ti,i Cuurt thu character h. ;,aitur. of tII, e 111,:I o t 43 at,(! 4 4 ? it. Ut:oy, ail ;U C)I. 1k)ts 3U U I I U a l,ortlol, of 29, ' h11 a1I_-1 1 1 c_ Vit k I L., L, 51,,}. lIC:1 k-LL't'uUSl W11ei1 WE' .:,, bu11UI;.0 UI: 1CJt I.U;1i:•t.I ju, v.,- iiac a Etructural • I . -1.0 tl„ i i,I I I(,I. tItu:--1,I, Iut_ jli, 4 ) aliu 44 1s-- ,,_ 0 cllaligc• lit grade. '!'I;vrc's a substantial di f ferencv ,. comlIosataoiI of thu material thuru. ` j1%2ru's; a tut clf accun.u1dtL:d trash, I . I Us1ru's 0 Flat 1 (Id I'uwctr and Light polo at ' Iwlct1u11 thLrre vi lot 3u and 29 that ei,craaches in i 1 `vnere's a lot of undergrowth. There was '' I IL!U tnc:re that was removed sometime in July. ' t►. All right, I would like to show you now i )USE[ H N. i & ASSOC., INC. t 114L I.11 t'11, wt Cuutt & li,at0 W- F1.- HLI I I q \1' II..1.11.. i4lW 126 -----. i A. Prior to appruximately July 1982, the ��1,rcul�,t--th�r� wjs r,c, vehicular traffic, F.rior to At that time after some things wuru LL j f rc,n, thu al le} the• Defendant started driving Vulxswagen camper bus from his buildiny westerly to t 1 t.-k t Cj I sa4: 1,1n, do this un sL,vuraI times - - rr i c,CCo•� i on-, 5v I do;,' t k jow that hL h0d originated 1 t r 1} f rur, „js 1.)U11dIny ur i•,61;' Strei t, Lut 1,c's the ��:►,�cl- 1'vc seen use, tnu alloy it, its entirety. ti. Ca;, you t1uSC1-11at-• ful the Cuurt thu character 11, 1,.,t urn of tt,u dl 1t_y behind I o t s 43 anti 4 4 ? it. Cli,ay, alsu or, Iuts 3U anti a portior, of 29, ut t l r�vk t., L� u sII,i. ,,c,l� 1,u� Ausu when we 1)Ui l c:l I. LA or, lot ;•ull;,t.-r .3v, W ►rat a structural .rl,i: t„t tit t lot, tt,ut---7, lot_ ju, 4 aiju 44 is-- �, cnLtn lt-, 1►, yradv. T11L-rC's a suL)stantial di 1 ferencu r. c•0m1•0sit10h of the material there. Tjjuru's a Jut of accur ulatvd trash, ►. : usl,. Thi ru's a r'1u11dd 1'uwc'r a110 Light Bole at ' IulicL1U11 thul'u of lot 3U and 29 that encroaches in i t.1• ,�Jley• r There's a lot of unduryrowth. There was , t lug.: there that was removed sometime in July. Q. All right, I would like to show you now I JOSE H ts. alai t%R'i L & ASSOC., INC. ��"'i?i'.r� � Oitioal Court Cuutt Rrtp,nto , y' \ / 131 • Citing for a violation? ,t They wure: halt of th(.: }flans that by tnt City to which ti1,.• t,ui ldinq kas t c(�natluctuci according to those Flans. MS. }iL'kALU: I have nottlirig further, Your Jiunur. t `1'Hf. COURT: Cross ex(imi nat iut1. CN.t,,SS LXAM1 N1% I Ui: t. I Mob1u},, wht2ru dc, ,•ramu 1ivu :. SC•1fICaIIy It, Curl Gaults, 1 I ri.Ua 1%1 t I b yvUI" aUdrtS� rt'L1U I,Cod(IIk-Ss A. IUCotUICJ, C'-U-11'-u-1,, . t. 11dt time d., you ye 1-1e ra1]y Ivavu this •. .1 L- 1 t o L' l, r u v e' 011 :a dal ]•}' 1J a s i s? hJvL' 110 f ixud schedule. Itillat tinge du you yt.rne•ialli arrive on a LJas1s 1 A. A11{proximately 6 : UU a . m. Now, you mentioned a sink hole which was Itiit• alleyway adjacent to your father's building. - — ----- JU-t,LI'ti S. St'HWAR Z tie ASSOC, INC. �f � 11• `J�. t('. i. .. �(� �. % .N N � �nt• 1 `I1,','1 / \�1.11111 � tJ ��t ��'__ _ ---..-:� � __,- (r 132 1 wonder i f yuu can duscri bu the sink Mule —} 11, 1971 diter WU LuI It Lht- L,UI Id.111y at {jl 1<lC St Itl.:t, wL: cummunced to but Id Lhu Vuildi-ny aL ass c. Strvt-t, and at thu roar of the Jut --I beIieve we ,1ti11t.:.1 tL-n It2L:t of lot 29, the rear lot of 29 and lot 30. We had an ungiiieeriIIy study done by cure "I I: Jt �%IiI CI t IIHIL the-�* wt•I1t to are L-XCL:` S of 8 U fL!UIL Ii1I Cvul,1 n,!t y(•t a solid fuundotioll u;, thf- cuI-t: S.Ifi,l:liI) .-i11C1 at thdt ticlf-• the structural ellyint•.:r decided Li v a k 1 L I l t:t11 1 t1, bV dI-1 vl 14y 1,1 1 111tj.� aI,U t I 1 UU11,<i wI t o tt, ] L,L.jI!, t11.1t we could bu11.1 tht• IUad-Uedr1nc vubtt:rII tnt• L.,U11d1L,tj ut IIUnlbu1 33.3.i 1<Ic. Struut. t. :11, HlY tlUuSt1UI, 1:�-. l wU!n wvnUt'III,: 1 1. cvul.l ttlt' tfill l,c: fUr mt.. I t t ?:t.':,dk-•i: 111ty lc:t �O I:: ILy u1,11.��1., 1,Tt I vn uI lot 2 9-- 4'. Cat1 you- --Ill thy• al ley. t:. C 011 yuu to 1 I mV huw OUL:1- It 16 f YUIII v1 s UJ 1 '•I,..t l V.ItIO11? 1 I +. 1 would say that the di f furencv ill grades i ra of the lot and the siduwalh grade thvru's i-t11,.11)1y five or six feet. Q. but with reference to the surrounding land, I� johE1111 5. SCHWARTZ ASSOC., C IN 1!~— ----- , �� l ,1� ),11 t n t uU (.uurt hr1 mt't 12 6 A. Prior to apptuximately July 1982, the f v� t1I C•uWJs r,c vut,icuIar- t r a f f i c 1-rior to 1 t 1rl,_ . At that t1mt: aftur some t111nys wuru f Iurn n tI,c� aI ley, the Defedant started driving ,.. Voltcswaijur, camper bus from his building westerly to t It al,c! I say: 11ini dc> this u1, s u v u r a I times-- 4 1 doi,' t k:,oW t 1,dt hu 11ae1 oriUinated i (�r;, 111 5 bUl 1 (i111y c)2 i•:a11' St ru t , 1,ut he's t11c: ��t,lcic I'�u Suur1 use• tnu allu}• it, its entirety. t. La; }UU u(rbc2"lt),_fut ti,u Court thu characte l h, ,,.,t urk Uf ttIL: al It:y I -)A 1,d I ti 43 a 4 4 ? 1,. C1t:a? a]so o1, lvts 3lr aIIU a 1 C)rt101, of 29, lt.vtk, Lt. a S11,C'AUSt W11e11 WC LU1]e:11.v e,1, lc,t 1.un,1--r 3u, k,k- t,ac a !tructural 11(; t1,, i •-11,1c.I. tl,u:- vt._ JU, Y-) a1,u 44 1s-- cha►1 It- 111 9radt. . T1ik:-rC S a suLStantia1 di f ferencu 1.•.. compositior, of the material thuru. T1121-C's :1 loft of a c c u n u I a t u J trash, I,,I U:SI,. Thi- ru's U t••1c,I-1da Puwur a1,u Light hole: at u11ct I vI1 tIIvru of lot 3U and 29 that cneruaches in i '1'ilere's a lot of undergrowth. There was , 11�c tnere that was removed sometime in July. I 4i. All riyht, I would like to show you now JOSEPH N. 1L11 %% Ah i L& ASSOC., INC. 84•"217 Ciit ,t Gunn R,1,onko 1 i; 1 31 iICiting for a violation? ' A. NU They Wert p a I t of tllt plans that 1ti'L Ic �I.I Ivk't.0 by tilt City to Which t11(.- bullcllnl3 wag ' CoNSt I uCt td aCCurdltly to those plans. I -IS. HLRALU: I have nothiny further, Your I Ilonur. i THL CUI.I<T: Cross excimInatiuil. i Ci o S S LXA�11 IAT u"I I,Y P. FuL,h,�i,l<I . t. I IIubI uy whe re do 1 (-i u ? 5l Icall}? 11, Coro l.UabIc-s, YI(.)IId� ltiII.:t 15 yc,Lir aadrtS I"t•!� l Ut I, CId(Irt5= n. 1 L) Cot vI o, C- U- 'I' -1.-1 . t. W—Idt tittle do you yt•nc'rally leave this I i f t It l' (, I U V e U I 1 a d a l I '.' L, a s i s A I iI.JVL 110 fixed schedule. �,. M,1.1t t illle do yllu yont•I al ly arriVt U11 a U,11 �'1 1.1c3a15.' i 1 A. Approximately b:OU a.m. I ._• �1. Now, you mentioned a sink hole which was I'1 tIIL. alleyway 1 adjacent to your father's building. JOAPH S. SCHWARTZ & ASSOC-, INC. �� S I 411,1�,► c :1,, Ii1t c:111„t ki'�I,,,L, 84�-21'7 . ,. �.11. `I�• t�l ... t+i.i, ��`i � F1.1. �.1 till,'l'11 �I1.11111 �I.1 ��ll .. - , - 132 1 woride_•r i f you can duscribe thu sirsk hole ;•,. 111 1971 a f t u r wt b u I I t tilt L,uIIdIIly at .331 PI St Iuut, wu cu111lltuncud to uul ld tlIL 1)u11ditly al 3 1:Ic( Strout, arid at the rc-or of thu lut--I IJelieve we „wne.l toll 1eut of lot 29, the rear lut of 29 and lot 30. had an unyif-ICL'riny Study dur,u b cure Hhlch tllilt- they}' wC'l,t tt, al, e>C(-2;;-i of 8U fUU 11tl i'L-)'tlit: !left yt•t a SO11d fuull(jutIoil C12, t}It_CC)r` S.III,i lln(J. ,inn at that tutu the structural enyinL-er decided LL';' a UU1 I10, bV Clrl V1 IILj !:1 I 1 Il(j., al,C: l,I 1do111y H'1 t �! t hlft we could 1)U11 Ci tilt' l oad-ijuarinu uubturIl tilt.' L,U1 ] (112,y ut IlUr11Lt_r .33-1 j J{1 C. Stret t . II.,' tiUt_•St 1C,1, 1 1 Wc,b wuIIUt.: I t. L. C t, J] d v l' b C I" 1 1, (.: t lit' t I i J: i t: f u r rr, t_ . l t t >:t.'I,.JC'0 111ty I(,t I I ItIoI, .)1 lot -19-- �. C:all you-- r�. --111 thl' alley. you tul l lllt_ hug': U.-..:1, 1 t is 1 rule vi su,A1 ;,. 1 would say that the di f furenev ill grade 1 11.. real of th.• lot and thu sidewalk yradv thvrc:'s I,lt)hably five or six feet. n " i with reference to the surrour,rlincl land Q. i jo�,El'lf h. SC HWAkTI dt ASSOC., INC. 1� j t Jf jt.,,,i (:n. urt t .our[ f ] 36 , �. Tnere are a number of utility poles back Liierc2; is tnat correct? A. .'llat's curb'ct . Q. I,ny idea when those utility pules were I,1 Licvd 1 ii tilt re? tl. 'I'ne utility poles that appear in this i i hoto on tnu oot t,-m was placed prior to our construction ,A tnu i-:ui luiily at 3333 }lice StreL:t . t. i4uH, you RIL:11tloll(-,d tilat I)11111c3S were driven ,,owl, tl,tuuyll t►IL: ground in ordui to etlahle yuur father to i l l.Ct IIIJ I,U1161lly; 1S tilat cuI I('Ct? it. Correct. 41. lioa• did the col tractor yL•t the pililly ; uI ,,nit :it Ut, t (., tli,,: property? �,. hull, we havtz accV! ul,c,: tlly k1cl. r� L II Ulit.lt�� t,ll lut 30 anci alc�tiu 1 hvC:nuu alid t I al.�k- V a- r,auL trirou9n there . t,. In other words, tiley useu every entrance 1. I t;Iall tlil: ail Ieyway? It. i'liuy d1dII't USA• t1,L: 011vy to tlll' b St of I.,. I-VL- U11LCt101,. G i I<,. is that because of the sink holu? A. Yes, because when they were doing the � t2„I �- san1ple, they almost lost the rig at one time due to ( !- ti� -Severity of the sink hole. - --- --------------------- -- --------- ---------- - JUSEPH S. SCHWARTZ ti ASSOC., INC. 84-217.., Ullic�.tl C:iiCwr l::�uTt h.(n�rt�� ll _- �..,,i j . 4 2 ;NtE:R•C=F"'CU MEMORANDUM Howard Gary February 24, 1984 City Manager RESOLUTION - APPEAL BY OBJECTORS 2801 FLORIDA AVENUE �u-61 AE-1 er�Zr- LugLone s COMMISSION AGENDA - FEBRUARY 28, 192 Director PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM #11 Planning and Zoning Boards Administration Department LAW DEPT MEMO DATED 2/24/84 This is to advise that the Law Engineering Report dated December 8, 1982 for the Grove Square Project has been filed with the City Clerk as per instructions received in the Law Department memorandum dated February 24, 1984. A copy of the above mentioned memorandum is attached. AEPL:III 0. 3 84-21 I . CITY OF `•111Mi, i 1-0100A INTER -OFFICE- MEMORANDUM Ralph Ongie City Clerk /�- �.t,,: A eT i o E. r1zz �ug 'ne,!e �� Di rec -or` Planning and Zoning Boards Administration Department February 24, 1984 RESOLUTION - APPEAL BY OBJECTORS 2801 FLORIDA AVENUE COMMISSION AGENDA - FEBRUARY 28, 1984 PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM #11 1. SOILS REPORT (LAW ENG REPORT) 2. LAW DEPT MEMO DATED 2/24/84 At the request of the Law Department we are transmitting a copy of the Law Engineering Report dated December 8, 1982 for the Grove Square Project. The Law Department has instructed that this report be made available at your office for inspection by interested citizens. AEPL:111 ..L., (•y,: ':•,w.'a'. - '.�'.. .. 1�� • .. 4. ,. i. °1�'.�J—'�.,_a"F!':a •... .y"c F�1` ... .. ., .:}:.�...�:�,..:o.,:{tSiLtn[7A•iq�1r+."y11eY.i:.r: .. ,.::v:�,,L�•: n•.w e:.::;�v,.::.....r..--+- t.. a;.� ... .,•. .-" .. ._� , , Aurelio Perez-Lugones, Director Dept. of Administration of Planning and Zoning Board . Miriam Maer Assistant City Attorney February 24, 1984 "Grove Square" Transir-.ttal of Record on Appeal This will confirm our discussion of February 22, 1984, in which I advised you to file the Law Engineering Report, consisting of approximately 80 pages, with the City Clerk, and to indicate on the Index of the Record on Appeal that, for administrative con- venience, you have filed the entire Law Engineering Report with the City Clerk. GMM/br 0 84-21T , 2801 Florida Avenue The S 95' of Lots 25 & 26 less the E 5.0' thereof and less the S 5.0' thereof Block 4 WILLIAM A. RICE SUB (1-13) -and- Tracts "A" & "B" GROVE SQUARE (121-83) Variance from Ordinance•9500, as emended, ARTICLE 15, Section 1520, SPI-2: Coconut Grove Central Commercial District and Section 1527, Maximum Height to permit construction of a mixed use project (Grove Square) on above site, as per plans on file, with a proposed maximum height of 56.0' (50.0' permitted); zoned SPI-2: Coconut Grove Central Commercial District. NOTE: This item was deferred from the meeting of January 30, 1984. Secretary filed proof of publication of Legal Notice of Public Nearing and administered oath to all persons testifying at this meeting. PROPONENTS: 12 OPP014ENTS : 4 Mr. Perez-Lugones: Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gort: Thank you. Mr. Whipple. Mr. Whipple: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, the Planning Department recommends approval of this item. In our review of the facts cbntained in the application for the request, we feel that there is a hardship involved with respect to the geological strata involved in the subject property. A hardship exists with the geological strata of the subject area which has prevented a reasonable effort to dewater the excavation for a surface, subsurface parking yarage. The raising of the str,actuve six feet would permit the construction of the parking above the existing water level. The additional height would not have an adverse impact upon the surrounding area. There is a concern hire this evening regarding a piece of property, of which the subject development is wrapping around, if you will, and you note our concern was not when so much with an individual property but that of the total area. On the basis of the information we leave which I think will be supported here this evening, we rocoilimend approval of this item. Mr. Gort: Thank you, Mr. Whipple. Mr. Campbell. Mr. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, at the outside let me say thz'lt if you see fit to jrant this variance, we would request the dedication, 'S it says in your z"'ng f.:ct 51,11t:Ot, the dQdic,_,tioll of the south 5' of Lots 25 and 26 anti the e3Stt::rly 5' of the southerly 95' of IA 4 �::�irh - the Outstanding 'Lt_`neJ r iolit--cf—w."Ity LOt?nth t-let_ last nt_'L' t'�i I t? ;Ose 0 lots. ;.•hat the Pla.rtni ly D' p.irt:•.t-..t il:.:, _.:id : s to t;.e c 01iC 6ti 3. to Ot th0 :?l;ject n.itt?, wC 1) v0 1'CViCw t..t f, !i1y Staff, !"'s rcv`ewt:Jl tht- Li::w £Ily 1 neering Tt: �;t ing Cor. :::; _ ;3ated nt t. ,,,ham t g � � � tl - i 5 a 'c , 1 a ^cam• nIng :O L,CUVe tiLlUcrt? i l'��j��Ct. :sJitj :ccor�iilly t_u t1:` tl:(?re is no untol t 1 .. � `; OL :.ii� ,��'0l0'.3 C foL� tllil lIl t ii�_ it?. �!' ? .1 � S 1 L a a>Ct�li� j iC and li j'a7T-OI .�tj l C tt�l'.., it 2t:t11 i!:.j L� t'I1Q:1:. t t) t': ' .-.. ' j t i. _ti:e 5tr :ta of 1 i L'Ol'�:, while 1t m'-I t ool1 t. is .i.utc1 fail is a-.a)1:0Lls .:1 1 i � ,ttt=l•i :1 1•.;il� 1 .,,:).as i.1LLy w..t_17. ThiS rul.:r l:y.3101C•yiC :,itu.lti: a is :,.,it :nic� I2 .• i t l, l? .:1' l t t t+'1: i t :.:t it it 1 ., ;:;: i •tUt` t t> ' t� ?` i $ .al t0 - 84"217 Is V poSed tO Otiir'r arE'a5 in t1,e C0LJ1";trV. We feel, :i? believe, I `should say, that th(_re is n,`D prcr,lr.:'; with th-f c] _,neral:v, i`h22rc= is :10 problem with: if f1C1En11 G'nl%tS %"re _':':Zl'=nded for snh e't Gillr�?C^ T1�_n7Gh Or -is ;;icntionf-'CI in tiic: rFr?vet, as wosil a w11 t;' i:1tS ? Ci th( W icle nine yar,!r;. F:iically, w h;at na!)C=:'11s 1 e r e i- that you have an elevati011 Of Plus 1 T: !_"� Or ltsr, it ;,lU(it +fir L i it t.Site, rat about 18, 16 to 18 feet a.L-o':e :-,,(:— .n si�a level. Beca:se of the configuration 0t *the Lui l%i i n-� anc? t: CaU'e of other certain restrictions related to the zonina and the benF_f its tt"lat accrue to the developer for prv',•iding on--itc--iblic _:m-nities and the placing of all the par..ing r=law ,r_?dc ttie}' t'ad to 40 dCwn to, I b+.lieve, a -v. ifiat's ' u,-lo'vi -,,_--an s(:a level with the bottom of their slat). 'htie top Of the ._f ar 'r: a_)prOa l:,.,:t� l}' d' hc'lO.%7 man Sea level. In i3iscu sing this with encineers or contractors for the dcwatering, we >-:entioned and we were correct in finding that the, basically, whatytt.e•y were doing was trying to pump Biscayne Bay dry because of the fact that they were 8' below sea level, they did observe: tidal fluctuations in the excavation or in the area that they had below 0 o that, in the report by the way, it mentions that althouah tt,4_re 'r.'„s a very positive recommendation or a positive finding that because of the engineering ccmpanv's experience with the underlying strata in this area, there is the possibility that they may run into some untoward situation, something unforeseen and they should take care of that. We, the Department, have no objection to the applicant's variance but we do want to sort of set the record straight as far as the engineering portions of this go and of course, we would sort of like to get our dedication. Mr. Freixas: Mr. Campbell? :,;a% I ask him a question, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Gort: Go richt ahead. Mr. Freixas: How deep are they down into the watering process now? Hew deep are they down now ...,here they found this situation? Mr. Campbell: I am not certain. I believe that the major excavation is somewhere, just about, that is thev're below sea level, below 0, I believe. I don't have that data at hand. Mr. Freixas: Okay. Mr. Gort: Okay, anyone else from staff? Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Now we come to you, sir. Mr. Price: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Board. My name is Stanley B. Price. I'm with the law firm of Fine, Jacobson, Block, Klein, Cohen and Simon, 2401 Douglas Road, with me today is my partner Mr. Martin Fine. We come before you asking for a variance of height requirements to construct a building of 56' where a building of 50' is permitted. Initially, I would like to note some of the history involved with this development. This development is one of the first developments to go in under the new zoning code taking full advantage of all bonus provisions of the zoning code in terms of public amenities. We have worked long and hard with your professional staff designing a building that met all single requirements of your zoning code. It is only through the experience of excavating the building have we realized that we have a problem, and we will get into detail what that problem is, that we are unable to complete the building as planned. There was a referral to the Law Engineering report, based upon that report which was issued in 1982, my clients took certain steps. If that Law Engineering report had accurately described the conditions of the site, my client would not have been fool -hearty enough to spend over $500,000 to date trying to dewater this site and we would not have planned our building as originally planned. Y.'e have worked with Mr. Luft who is the chief planner for this area, designing a building that met every single requirement and I want to emphasize, we came and we cot our permits without the first variance of this Fci .arse 13, Zoning Boar-; 84-21 *' Board. We believe that this project and this s a rendering of what the project is going to look like (Mr. Price displayed the drawings as he spoke). The elevation of the project with the fact that it is going to have underground parking; it's going to have public amenities through theaters, other crevices permitted under the zoning code and I'd just like add this building (few words inaudible, not speaking into the mike). What we have done, and Peter, if you don't mind pointing out to them, we have made an elevation chart of this building, if the variance is granted, in regard to the other immediate neighboring properties; for example, the building... Mr. Gort: Why don't ycu move back a little bit so they can see it from.there. Mr. Price: ...Mayfair in the Grove is taller than our building. Nearby apartment buildings eighteen stories high. The Rolling Development Building is taller than our building and most importantly, the only neighboring property owner who is protesting this application today, his building, which our building surrounds, even with our variance will still be taller than our building that is because that neighboring property owner '.:as granted a variance by this Board back in 1974 pc=rmitting him to go to a height greater than the height we are asking for. At fact, I have the transcript of that meeting which Mir. Gort was a member of the Board at that time and Ms. Basila was also a -member of that Board and this Board unanimously voted to deny that variance request and I think it's very important to hear some of the testimony that was given at that time. Number one, Mr. Gort asked, "So you're only going to have two floor of offices." Mr. Antoniadis who is the neighboring property owner, "No, there are three." Mr. Gort, "Three? fiow many offices are you going to have there?" and then there was some other dialogue and Mr. P.nteniadis further testified that the top two stories of his building „ere going to be utilized for residential use. lie's going to stand before you tonight and object. I would ask this 13oard to . ,--.k him under oath as to whether his building is hhing utilized udder the same conditions his approval was grantfA back in 1974 which this Board unanimously vothd to deny but was overturned by the City Commission. In regard to the hardship of our property, we are going to proffer testimony tonight to demonstrate that there is a hardship and that testi:-.ony is predicated upon the fact that had we }mown of the actual conditions at the time of planning this building, we never would have built or planned on this type of building. In fact, if this variance is not granted tonight, we can still build a building whereby our apartments and our stores will be located in the struct•.:re. The only thing that would be <)one from this building are the public amenities which are encouraged by the ordinance which we have put in. I'd like to first call Mr. James Cummings who is the president of Cummings Construction Company who is the project... general contractor. Mr. Cummings. Mr. Cummings: Good evening. My name is James Cummings. I'd like to start out by giving you a little b;:ckground on the project. When the project was bid, the oa;ner employed the firm of Law Engineering �;hich is one of the largest geotechnical engineering firms in the United States. They came out to the project; they :a:a ie Soil 1_`•-Drings, trl:nches, vx eri;rental de•-,:atering operations and cl.nductoi a group of surveys to cl.et_r line «!'3t type of 1..0 i ld i nmj ►:ou ld be, t !:e s i:-,a of Ole bu i l (i inn-," t!:Q depth of t! e building ;::,,i various tl:hr things. in coin. :o, t! .=y ....=ire the 5t.:tm`.-.t=nt th.=t th, y mr ili :met i+ y us, .:s :;ell :s t m, c.;.ner, the l:.'.;•.:t:'L"l:i�) itl?,itl+_n i' Cl�):;,' 'L .,: .iLim.:a l)t t.:e a :)l.`t_.. .iil llt.\' l!:.�t S lm _i l ] it t; i ..i!1 !'il' inch of :in .m1Jin :m. . 1' 1' _l.c`1't t !. �t t.i:e .' 1 1 C:m 11,,i i !17 ..'� .:UC h, Lm: \',. Ct.11 .1)y 1m1 n ,.t' S 1 _ ....,i tJ 1 1 .` t!:m2 hil 1 1 J i r.) to Cut tm_ j ; i . i m_• it '.y r_it' `.L. t .� m_ y,1,.' t",. .'t l• :1 t ;1a tC? t. I ]-:,__!it :C I'll this, Litt : t!:t:! :cntr.:c'.r tm_li, L3 0:1 it i 1_:0 t tors t l: +t I i i I)vo . c l i n :.!1' S t 1�4r� t l :.t' )i i!il: i t �'1.7 i 1 .l'• i �'. tl :,: = vn ,gym .'t in ti f V --21 . 1 1 4 S200,000 because the Miami ].1:`,:Stoi1= ti at 'v S repoutt d to be there an:] was evli](i-nc('d by tn"" L,i'.,' rt_, wi. •n 'ti' t ` � '�+.::- ` ,; r ;�Ldr�r_'fJ �O � lg 1 � was Ob':'ious that it was not �Il+_'r+' t! _onz;'_l:uction was ''7aln stopped d11 j '.tie did put 1n an au(.,'C _ -t r' t,:In wall "iL]gacent totwoof the structures. Th1= is the rt-_I:t:;L"L i i%.` ✓ '. rr4liel on in hl(dl lg c311d i.n a3 so devel) )i ng this ent ire- t. .e i aw t:f-2 L't ,31S0 st ites that In doing the excavati( n t;t3t 'w�i`(_r wlil b' encc':nterrd In an elevation of approximately +2. ftiat.r w,:;s -,.t this e].+-vat ion. The Law report s, ys t ,,::t i•ou will, you can aklequately (iewater the site by pu:npin,g .'; i rax i r, :`_ Iy 14,000 (1,:1 lons a minute. They reco+TiiT'i(_nded that i)1:�atllizr2,1. Cpf-,n pu,mipi ng is a M1.1c11 dlffert211t ()Perat- i()n trsiin 'v: "ll pcJ_nt ol:erat10I1. It requires ptl'nping a Cgl:(tL r aiL011ilt Of =it(_t It il:-;o aff!'"cts Lilo sjbsurface lOII"itions consi(i,?rably difL+-1:+=nt than t'-,(3 utilization of a well Point system. A -,,;ell print-::srn,r, under virtually any condition will dewater th+' sole ;ir"a Wltll i::'.(? :.:!; e_ httjjd of water by Pumping 1ss water. It also has a 1+ s.`zer ilni'act oin t!le subsurface condition-,. In relyin(1 on the I..aw r(:Ui)rt 'v:hich Said you would be rcfquired to pu;:lp ai,pro>:i: at.Iy 14,000 gallons with an upon pumping System, it was estimated that .- ith the well point syst('n you could IjiJ:iip approximately 9 to 10 tl,+ u:;,na gallons if you W, —_1.d the s;i;le system. The 9en(1ral contractor, at the expen::e of approximately $65,000, installed four on -site disposal wills. Each well could pump approximately, or could take approximately 3,500 gallons a minute assuming that the Law report at 14,000 or well point system which is a much more expensive system, could pump 9,000 gallons a minimum --at a maximum. We felt that we were adequately covered; unfortunately, when we started to discharge the water in the on - site wells, we did pump 13,500, 14,000 gallons. The water went down approximately two feet. The Law report indicated that there was sand strata approximately 15 to 20 feet located between the Miami limestone which is the upper crust of limestone and the Fort Thompson limestone. Now sand has a lesser permeability than limestone. Water is less apt to penetrate and filter through the sand than it is the limestone. In installing the wells, which we actually drove the casings (jown, we put in originally 140 some well points, it was evidenced that the sand was not there. What we had was a cavitatious type limestone with a very fine layer of sand between the Miami and the Fort Tho:-,lpson limestone. T:s a result of that, the watering filtration into the upper strata was much greater than what we had anticipated. So not only was the sand layer not there, the wells which should have taken 14 to 15 thousand gallons a minute which were installed by Jaffer Well Drilling, one of the pioneers, I guess, in drilling wells in this area...the wells were recharging; the water was coming back as fast as it was going down. They were 110 feet deep. Our well points were approximately 30 feet deep and without the sand holding back the water, it was permeating back up to the surface much faster. It was obvious at that time that we really could not rely on the Law report so we determined the best approach would be to discharge the water off -site since the wells we spent $65,000 for were not functioning. We had to get rid of the water off -site. We brought in additional pumps, doubled our pump capacity. We got permission from the City to pump the water into the storm sewer. After much expense and considerable work, we only pumped 13,500 gallons of water. It went down about three feet. So it was obvious that there was even a more --there was even more of a problem than anyone had encountered. At this time we consulted some additional experts. In the dewatering field there are probably three, probably three of the largest companies in the United States that are also internationally known... Mr. Freixas: Mr. Cummings, let me interrupt you a minute because I'm trying to follow what you're saying. Mr. Cummings: Yeah. Mr. Freixas: When you got the permit from the City to put the water back... Mr. Cummings: Discharge water off -site. 4 February 13, 1984, Item 1 Zoning Board 84--.241} fit. V Mr. Freixas. ... it '17 r. t t. Cut?'„ilinO . Ye_ h, tnat's lt. .Ow you have t0 understand that when ;'OU'ce L)U;',; no int0 v;_I IS, It's a �r.ctf?r difference when u pummp it co:;,,.lctc_ 1y off -site... ';r. Freixas: 01—, t'rle e is a. .. Mr. Cu,,,mings: ...Ti-:- Law r(:-p,,)i.-t inr3icatf:5 14,000 disposed on -site. That's like p:7p i n 9 20,000 off - site. That's the comparison because it's a much --'whin you het it cr,,mplet,21y out of the area, it's an altogether dlff�_r tit picture'. Mr. Freixas: The :��ason I'm asking is because I'm building a builAing no-v.,, they're building it for me, and I was just at the job site today looking at the (3ewaterin.3 process 1:nd it's most interesting what y(.)u're saying but I just wanted to know how many feet went. Altogether three... Mr. Cummings: Yeah. Mr. Freixas: ...at that point. Okay, I'm sorry. Mr. Cummings: Oki-y, let let ,rye digress a minute and tell you another thing that occurs when you open pu;ap whicn the Law report originally recommended. If you open pumnp, .you have what you call boils. If you don't ,]raw the water down fro;m below, your hydrostatic prc'ss:.tre is such that if your pumping from up top, you have boils which come up underneatt;. Thcse 'DoilS move Sand, move the fine particles ani3 consequently you j,CGnerate the capability of your soil underneath when you do this. This is one reason you don't open pump but you do use a well point. You draw the water down as opposed to sucking it up. when you suck it up, you suck everything with it and you put it right out in the bay. Okay, so what we did, we got the permission to pump off -site, this was granted. we pumped the 13,500, the water down about three feet. t•:e knew then we had some real big problems. Not only did we have the subsurface conditions that were in variance with the contract documents which was evidenced by all the money that we had spent so far, we found we better get somebody that knew a little bit more about it than Law or anybody else in the general area. We called in --let me digress again. There are three major dewatering firms in the United States. They are Stang, Griffin which is the subcontractor we have employed and Mortrench. I called the chairman of the board of Mortrench; he flew down here from New Jersey. He met with us for a day and a half. He brought his chief engineer in and we evaluated the :situation. The following week I contacted Mr. Raleigh, John Raleigh, he's...was the senior engineer and chief engineer for Stang Dewatering for forty years. He's probably a world renowned expert in the dewatering field. He has done considerable dewatering in the Miami area as well as Mortrench has done. I think the people that we've had involved, I don't know of anybody that can refute these people. I would certainly put them up against anybody in the industry. They all came to the same conclusion that in order to dewater this site, you had to pump in excess of anywhere from 25 to 30 thousand gallons a minute so when you're trying to compare and say that everybody relied on the Law report and this is, we should have known this, well you have to understand the Law report says you're gonna pump 14,000 gallons, you're gonna put it on on -site wells but when we pumped 14,000, we lowered it three feet; we got to lower it 8 feet. So I think the credibility of the Law report should stand on its own when you really understand the facts. Okay, subsequent to Mr. Raleigh's report, we put in approximately 500 points. We put•in pumps with the capacity of 25 to 30 thousand gallons a minute. ode just --to explain how the :magnitude of this pumping, if you have swimming pool and the standard size of the pool is like 20 x 40 feet, in 5 Fe.1iruary 13, 1984, Item, 1 'Zoning Board 4 4 fifteen seconcj your :�oc 1 is full. If you've uv,__r tris_d to fill }'cut pool with It tys ::..13s r_,;o r)r t!!l _-� ? WP_11 in f i f t-->n .econd.s ✓o-;r ,:ool I t enough water to fill. t:.'D,..._ -:n.i ti:7,es if it was a big h.athtub. ,).it in t.'rbi;i ity b :rri��rs at the bay to 1n5UrF' tll it the wat r is I:;]Ce tti it lo,_S into t!ie ba% i'�e �'t' tarn teStS in trie water that w�2're „i.;ci:argina, it's virt':ally :lr lnka )Ie. It's :.Jch clf'aner t!..:n What w a S in the baI hr'caUse it' S all being iilterc-d. -`O I thing: :<_.t WC, ve i1c'n'- and tht� >,ople that we've emploved have cci`I" to tt!e o,`inlan t It is f13; s,1151_ li yOU raise the building tO t' wLI,er t, I mi,j!lt a,41J ttl1it there are various problems that iL"r. tncotint'_rI: C6 yc%U Stan this l'011li�,: nf_ wat-er. 11i'_' it 1S, if y,JU start pumping 10,000, 15,000 _allons a don't necF,.:�arily d15tUrb the flnE'S or _:,e Sa;1d t.._t's in the cli ltir s of the li-mestone provided }'ou are using an adequate we11 point system. To get the building to �,n -levation cf negciti:e 3, which would be required if it's built , _r pl1i:is and specs, I t:ion't think there's any question that you be 30 to 35 thcusair.ti c::11ons a minute at the Onset. lh,= lr.Ore }'(DU PUT il the more you cvlltinue to pump, it's a }mown fact thc.t the 1';C?t:= }'cu 4111. puliir.l and it will increase and increase and incce0se. There is no cne, tU ;iiy knowl(dre, in the United :Mates that can tell you if you start pumping in Miami limestone and you're pumping 30,000 gallons a minute that two weeks from now you'll still be pumping 30,000 gallons a minute and your water level will stay the same but what they all will tell you is, nobody's gonna tell you what you're going to be pumping. You could go from 30,000 to 100,000 gallons a minute. So if anybody doesn't think that there's a possible impossibility, then, if I could, I just .wish 1Mr. Raleigh was here, we had him here at the last meeting but, a inatter a fact, w•a flew him in from Nebraska, unfl ortunately, lie can't be h(--re tonight bllt like I say there is no one that I thine:, that I 'know of that can refute his opinion. He has degrees that look like any note pad here and I think his experience with forty years with ti;e largest, one of the largest firms in the united States, it's an international firm, certainly stands on its own. As far as sheeting or snoring, the only possible thing that could be done to adjacent buildings, I know that sheet piling was mentioned. You can not drive sheet piling into limestone. If you want to knock a building down, drive sheet piling next to it in li-mestone. It will literally vibrate the ceilings right out of the building. ''ghat we have done is install an auger cast wall at considerable expense and that has worked to retain the buildings. As far as cost goes, I think, the original contract for dewatering was about $375,000. As a result of the insufficient data on the Law report, I know the owner has spent approximately $200,000 in retaining systems. The Cummings Company has spent over $350,000 in additional dewatering utilization and installation of discharge pipes for the City of Miami. Griffin Dewatering has spent over $350,000 now. I think that one of the biggest things to consider if the project is ever going to be built and anybody ever expect phase two to go, if you only went to an elevation of negative 6, you've increased the cost of the building approximately a million dollars because there isn't anybody that's going to go down there after seen it in action and seen what happens and give someone a quote based on the Law report because it's just not correct. So I think if phase one is to be built with a reasonable expenditure and phase two is ever to be built then I see no alternative other than to raise the building. If anybody has any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Mr. Price: Thank you, Mr. Cummings. Mr. Gort: Thank you. Mr. Price: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to your suggestion at the last meeting because -Mr. Raleigh was unable to be available tonight being from Nebraska and now he's.in Hawaii, we have submitted to staff, furnished a copy to the opponents at t}:e last hearing, of an affidavit filed by Mr. Raleigh, attaching his findings, his scientific findings and I ttiinr: ti1e contr,�lling ::vn1IZg t3CcL":7 84-21i., portion of the affidavit, if I just :n%,y t)riefly read it, 8, that it is his opinion t h• _ tr.'_- ?:IStt(I riiv, facing the pro4oct ace virtual witil cc)n% tional drownw. tt2r, dew,t7 _:F-rin1,]1( =at ii b:i; ;1�-7 li.Dt h _i:St ,iiF:CtiV� Or (Jro]i;Cti%7e to cuntinur, with Cistern at thepr(':;r•ntly pl finned d�-,pth. );1a. 1-31n, 1 '3 Olo1<'2 L 0 r ::im not being here tonight but Irie was ;;.,:e at- ti,e . st hea1:i'?g. I'd Ii':e the of f idavit t0 o lnt0 ti-fie r:c rd as w(_ 11 .3S the tori�ia1 photographs which I have sub,ni t~f:c: t } th-, oi:rd . I wcild now l ike Mr. Jon Suriol who is a prim inal of Int(_r'i vco and HdVCa to testify ..s to hi:-; exp,_rionCe '.pit:h t,.is ro t. Mr. :3*uriol: ;,� n, is is ui: iol. I';n the chief executive officer of... Mr. GOrt: 1.1 yoU up, please. Speak into the mike. iSurial: I':i; t ,e Chi,:f f'x•�Cuti',,Q offices: of Interdevco the Ju elopment corporation. 'li:e point that I would like to emphasiZ,' tonight iS t:at from th,-: incc-ption or the conception of the buildinu, we tried to w.7 with the City of Miami and help our architects to the concept of what this particular neighborhood in Miami, the Coconut Grove, required and what this location was suitable for and to build a building that would fit the characteristics of this neit3nborhood and that would enhance what had already been done by all of the developers that we thought was an outstanding job. From the beginning we mmet with Jack Luft in order to fully undr_r stand wh::t the Planning D-_part;nent of the City of Miami got a plan for the nc:ichi,borhood, what the C-2A ordinance was. We met with Laura Howell that at that time was at the Zoning Department in order find all t:"-.is ,premiums that were given for what reason were they given and what did we have to include in the building in ord(ir to do an outstanding project that would fit in this neiahborhood, as. I said oefore. I trade a personal point of fitting...being a part cf what was being built and being an outstanding project that wculd not require any variance or anything that would be like a special concession for something that could be done in accordance with what has already been planned and that's what we did. We presented the plans that were approved by the City of Xia;i and we started to build this building. Unfortunately, we have found this unexpected condition certainly were totally unexpected by me. I get in concert with the general contractor. lie had given me an amount of money that };ad to be spent. We had plans that were done by the architects. We had engineering reports that told us how we get to develop this particular project and this date we are more than one hundred and something days delayed and we keep pumping water and I always see the water at the same level and there is no way of going deeper so at the certain point and I met with Jim Cummings and he communicates to me what the problem, what was the sort of problems that they were encountering and what the possible solutions were. I don't think that we can build a building that was initially approved and that we were willing to build. It's just totally unfeasible and the water had to be out of there before the end of the year or before Christmas. Christmas night I went by there, the water was at the same place. I went at the end of the year and I had the New Year looking at the same water in that huge swimming pool and at this time, after spending all sorts of money, we are still at the same point. All we are asking is a 4 feet variance in order to be able to build that building with the theaters, with all the public amenities that we made a point of putting in. I mean, I think that the architects can testify that sometimes they were telling me that I was the City's Attorney or something because I always said, "Well, I want to have all these amenities in this project. I want to have the theaters. I want to have the planters". They call me the "planter" sometimes because I'm always talking about the landscaping so we really did an effort to do a good, outstanding building and all I'm asking is to be able to build this project, asking only for a 4 feet variance due to the fact that we have encountered these conditions. 'That's all I got to say. B4-217 . It I Mr. Price: riol, Just _ne :,uestion. In the event that ti,e Varl•.l__ is not ,ran ed, w'I,it plans d0 YOU i'i -ve for the building? Mr. Suriol: C-ert"inly, we' it ii, ve to ... redesian it and all these agreein,-nts that we 10t in the F'-' R by the fact of giving the public...the- that we arc, not 3ettina any rent for them. I mean these theaters ti,at =re c��r.s unity theaters. All these open plazas, =1l these 'r3"strl::n activity that we have tried to create by giving f.ilis oG,_nness to the project, we will have to redesign, prob i -A V ttiil_'y wi:-i l(in' t be thf. r e any more. Mr. Price: Titan ; �)u . ?1r. 'loran -Ribs •:1:;: '•1r. Price, how ahO:it s_-o:apping the theater for an underground pool? Mr. Price: l nderuround poi l? ;;e'd have one of the largest in the world, sir. Mr. i•ioran-Ribcaux: isn't it? Vould that fait? Mr. Suriol: that joke lately. 1 iT ran, tilat's a public amic:nity, This is a bad joke. I have heard Mr. :loran-Riheaux: Let me tell you, it wasn't a joke. Mr. Price: -1r. Chairman, we have a petition signed by eighteen neighboring property owners as you could tell from the zoning map, including the largest- single property owners in the area. I'd like to introduce that into the record. In addition, we have the sic -nature of the president of the Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce on behalf of the organization. One neighbor who owns the property, as you'll note, on that block in that section of land in green, 'sir. Mobley would like to address the Board for a couple of moments. Mr. Mobley: My name is Dale tlobley. My office is at 3300 Rice Street. Mr. Gort, members of the Board, I would just like to advise you in your deliberations of considering this application, first of all, we are strongly in favor of it. We've been dealing with the people from Interdevco for about two and a half years. I know a lot of times developers come up here and when they're asking for a variance they make all types of promises, they'll meet with the neighbors, they'll take this into consideration, they'll do this. I would like you to know as a Board and for the record that in the over two and a half years of dealing with these people that they have been absolutely outstanding in their consideration for, speaking for ourselves, neighboring property owners. We share about 350 feet of contiguous property line where we have two buildings. They have consulted with us before they have taken any steps. 'They've advised us if they were going to do something that would cause undo noise or some type of difficulty, dirt, water, whatever, the entire, Mr. Cumming's people on the job, Mr. Suriol, Mr. Blitcher, Mr. Fine and Mr. Price, everybody associated with this team is first class. They go out of their way to do things right and I'm just here tonight to urge you, in my opinion, that they should be granted this minor variance so they can go forward with what is a pioneering project and the only mixed use project in the entire area and I think we'd be ashamed that after all this effort and this expenditure of time and money that they would be denied this just building the project as they originally intended to build it because of unforeseen circumstances that I just, I can not urge you strongly enough to approve this application. Thank you. Mr. Price: fir. Chairman, we'd like to reserve some time for rc-buttal. Thank you. 8 February 13, 1984, Item l Zoning Hoard 84-21 i , n'. v,-) �1 T 1-i 0 3 (2 n opposition. A n yo n in r) pp r);-, I t r, 3 k-2 :n e M, r . An t (D n 7, n i :-i m-2 Board, my name is Yianni5 Antoniatlis. C (2 t In 'I'd �2- _ Coc(D11u1C_ Grove and I am the t.- " " IDC11(F EY ,Y; n ct r wn 0 IS surrounded by this project. First of .jll, 1 #3 to thank "0 t e that there Mr. Price 1( -71 - -- 1-_),: 5,,�tting ur) are -any people in this L1-.a I thc-y - iuh ali SD-0fight because thF'y have 3 cause and L b t!-, -a t must cause. Others have money _ .nd power anl i t to ta' Pfrom others a n d to satisfy L.. i r grief dictates. Naturally, there are (j (:) OJ i,] 11 t-•2 1: s ,re bad fighters. The (300d fighters hit y(.)u in tll-ie face and the bad fighters ilit you below the belt th-_Y ✓-,now that they can't win otherwise. not trying to be with Mir. Price's augressiveness. Ile's atte;nptc�(l to deicril)e me so as to cOv,2r up t L oparticular he witness of this case. I , - -D into this case U where thf-1,y claim to have a hards'nip due to the uni,-IIe geological conditions and in i-,,y injuisitiveni-_ss, I wk-_nt in to look, at some -- I'm not a lawyer and I don't particalarly care for any lk--yalies but through :-,iy inquisitiveness, I wont and looked up some cases to see what does it take to ask, for a variances and I found out that the issue here is whether the hardship shown is merely an economic hardship and whatever the hydrological conditions of this site are special conditions resulting in a unique and unnecessary hardship such as is legally sufficient to support the granting of a variance. What I know a variance to be, is a variance is a relief uranted from a literal enforcement of the zoning ordinance permitting the use of a property in a ranner otherwise forbidden. To grant a variance, a f1n6inIg Must be made that enforcement of this ordinance as written 4,ill inflict an unnecessary hardship on the property owner. That hardship ;-,iust be peculiar to that particular property and not general in charact(�- This is a peculiar problem. The parcel of this land is not so. The report, report of 1.1 - , I r . - - T a W particularly the Engineering will show that this entire area shares the same geological problems. F u r th e r;no r e , certain conditions must be -,w�t to qualify for a variance on the grounds of hardship. An exception and a unique hardship to the individual land owner, unique to that parcel of land and property, not shared by other owners in an area, is an essential prerequisite to granting of a hardship zoning variances. Unnecessary hardship as used in a zoning ordinance and related to variances, usually means that the difficulties of hardship rely or must be unique to that parcel involved in the application for the variances. They must be peculiar to that particular property and not general in character. Since difficulties of hardship shared without us in this area go to the reasonableness of zoning generally and will not support a variances. The petition has failed to show a unique hardship. Hardship with geological strata was certainly a hardship is not unique for a parcel of property. Instead it is unique to a tract of property, including the neighboring lands. The petition has failed to show whether or not, if any, by digging as deep as the neighboring land owners might encounter the same hardship that they have; therefore, he has not demonstrated a unique hardship to him as an individual land owner and again, their own report, not on file, they saw to it that it would not be included in this file but it was found at the Public Works Department which is the Law Engineering report clearly states that and it shows every possible method, so there's three different methods that this place can be dewatered. In my --I'm not a public speaker and in my preparation for this, I had written down something that I feel very strongly about it and I wanted to relate what I think of this particular project. I'm not trying to be vindictive and I'm here because duty and justice calls. I do not enjoy wasting my time. I'm an architect and my duty is serving mankind. It's to create positive and beautiful environments. I have found that noncreative use of my energy makes for unproductive and unpleasant matters. Tonight I'm here to help my neighbor. I'm here to preserve a direction set by the Planning Depart.nent of Coconut Grovt--- Village. My reasons for doiny this are very simple. I believe that a b(--tr,--r t-- n v i r o n I t kq 0 U I 1i L'I 1) i-, n c e 1 -v 1 -1 f _J Li a I i , : nJ tf-_. r :1D .,. 1 t will 9 F,::i)cuciry i..), i'id4, Item I 84-217 , I A, !;iake me a hQaIthLer pr, i„=rty ?'vlll'=t . 1 3n %F:l;., t::night I C_:;n help Tly ne i(3h1)ous 11 _ 17e ay ,)11 .11lZ 11 i F, XI *'zC i..:2 ('1,! thlat of "ty expert enyin('t;rt':) '• r: 7 t', t tltl0n }:a no problem. I will also '.r, 110 s`i-D+rli�?F s<�uilt by thy. :)etition r5 trill put nc 'm L- r` in J1 (.<): .r:iy. I';n ht re tonight to pres"-- ve :ny •w 1t}1 � } l 1. �5 i,:, 11 � 1�:'S. I 11011 the top floor Uf this pro, :l t}' O' r'L },(=t it G I i]ae 3 b.JtLiU1 vleW Of the bay which I will }I'_ w ;: ou 1at-r v:}a J.c;l I will try to preserve. I don't believe in a that this can be a will-,vin situation for all )Jtic)eti,t)C:. Tlile etitions alledged that a hy(3rolo'7ica.l 14-i%l--u1.ty ::Ki.'t` 1'}l�' )-I-- e' ide!1C: by way of documentc3tir)n w're 1ett.rS on ili', 1:0 Ot `}':Et:?., Oil? fL'OiT! t}1e gentIeiw; n t}iat t1-1,ev hiCi: i f1:0M,, +''r .Ji=r::%y 3-IC3 ii1!)ti1P_C One v;}i0 is their consulting engint.l-.r and the 1 .tt ,rs corlt,i.t_:cle two things, an engineering 1)ro})1em c2xi: is and nu:`:')r_L" two,`_h(' Folution to that Jr0}:)liem exists but not } y grantin:7 a TI-e solution lies in a different ,riethod to ice,? us(.:d '.-heti,er it's t},,� most practical or not, it is uni;nown. 'Khat is 'mown })y the language of that letter is that the solution does 'exist. Flirt}:ormoL"e, when a neighbor cries for help, it's trot ',•our pro*:- :n to core to his aid and this 15 � -C i S e I y What tIney }ici':e done with the r,-st ::)f the Planning Board, as well as the City of Mia:-ti 'Zoning and Building Department. If anyone can sympathize with petitions and construction problems, I can. It seems to me that this is a case of crying wolf and though there are wolves in Florida but definitely not in Coconut Grove. As far as I can see, the petitioners have not really demonstrated the alleged hardship. In fact, their own letter acKnowledges that a dc',.atering could be done especially that now they have installed a 36 inch sewer ling= to carry t:;is cater to the bay and this particular line is being tested at present. 1"hey have started, I believe thf:y started p.;i";ping two or three days :ago and the water has already b�_tter than 2 feet down. Furthermore, they have not been puMiDing since Jana-ary t}-.e 3rd till now so this pool that iir. Suriol mentioned earlier --xiSt(d for no other re'lson than because they ;c; re net 1_u71ping. In a fc:c Minut.s -;y expert will point out to you what we think t}le real proble:,l to be. What petitioners are currently experiencing is sy.-iipto:i,atic of all projects, of all big projects. T}<<.:y think big and they have to tackle big problems. It's like tryinc to :-•:allow cr.e apple with one bite instead of taking a little at a ti:;:e. The projects right here in t-liami, on 3rd A%.-enue, for instance, and 28th Street, they're doing a similar project w},.re they had to co down and dewater and they did this very successfully. '1'}-,(=y dewatered one section at a time and I have pictures to show you of that specific project and they were able to do it. I don't know what --I don't want to mislead you by what I said earlier. The petition problem here is not one of greed and vindictiveness. There is no conspiracy here. The problem is really one of tunnel vision. In short, petitioners tried to bite to much at once and possibly they used the wrong method. Both errors can be corrected and become less costly and less nuisance to themselves and me. The dewatering problem, if you have a dewatering problem, you have two elements to deal with, the site and the method. With the method, if the method doesn't work you change your method. If your site has a problem, the engineer in the Law report tells them that you are to expect and to anticipate problems. They tell them how to do this. They tell him that you should dig only one quarter of this land and test it out with an open pump and if that doesn't work go ahead and put your well points and if that doesn't work use sheet piling and if you have water coming up, as they've mentioned there's boiling of this water, use grout to seal that. This report is a very thorough report. It's about a hundred pages long and it explains every step of the way how to do it. It gives them alternative methods. It gives them solutions to the problem and there's no question in my mind that this can be done. The problem can be solved to the satisfaction of both parties, myself and them. They can have their building and I can keep my home with a view. Any fight here is to preserve my home and my prop...to protect my property. If I win, I will have nothing more than what I had before except the cost and aggravation. You ;:now, this is a i;ind of a fi<3ht over David and Goliath, the odds to :r;y reasons to protect my riy:,ts and to 1)ratt. :!1d IL UL"ot_Ct... an(i I 1984, Item 1 84-21'7 .. riance so iJ n,;t ply. 'just ;gilt yourself l.-1y shoes. riould yOu :5 a property owner go to that I have gon', to protect ^y hom ? Of C000S? you r:�;t11'7 :)1•C::L1!:; tend Y�' losr-, you stand t7 lose, also. I'm beiri,7 to (lr t}iPir l,-'LUblr'and i j i,-- I. ;.. !l 1' OL �:�il l']Fi L':gi L ] i 1Q r 1 is 1. ` :(� ,. the %7ariances. ud iir� is ini,j.I- t0 tl.,:` prscit:.c and this has not b, n pro` ,-,nt;Jlii ' hdrdship. I,aw Enginr:'^_ring prov' S COnCL'_:31':('ly th, t t:,i. can w7IN . T'ney show alternate m.tlic7(]S. I'.:�', -:i(� ,'w' i]( C..n l0 this thin(? _mehow, I don't know �:}:..t t;(r rr,_.S(�.15 �r , they lave- I oided following the instructions ),I:lJ �.;tji!ir :ring. l.,_"'ll I:uve You believe that if you (Ion't ir,irt thistonl(iiit, they will (o head and '_ake out t!ie -l:..l L`'"., :..,. ,n i'_ if'_'s , clie ,. 'n i t lr'S 15 the t'v;Q t1ti=r.S. Wog 11 I'll t1a .2 '.J t:ii:'H' i.l;'it t}i(_S'_' tt'_rs -I owr_.7 them to 1)uild j..d(]i=in::.1 . �l) I l'.ls :::r•' f r a. �J1ldlilg. Thern's no way tliat t11ey c%3 1 t, '.':r' . . ti; ,.t t::ey Will ]i1St discard 25,000 square fl=et of a building. `This is a bona=. I'll have you }:now that prudent dev-1el-,rs in ti:is ;:r,_-a, the ;ayf_air, Continental Plaza, '_vr'rybody souaht n(Jt ':0 Jo this and t "ic-y built above ground parking garages and ,•;;-:c:n tl-,ey consulted with the neighbors, particular ly Nr. T re lst� r, ':S to '+:li,':t t ld, yO'J knov:, to how they should dev•-,lop this, li(' told th'_:r tii+_y tried to o`;erdev(alop. I went to show this Boar(] toriigi)t that the J hav,-, t; '-,y claim in here that they will havr:, th--re is a lary:=r building than theirs in this street, not so. This is roughly what's happening there. Mir. Gort: To operate the machine you need a clear...a new (unintelligible) on the clear...the paper will not work. (In reference to the overhead projector.) Mr. Antoniadis: The paper 7,":ust be transp. rent only. Mr. Campbell : (Away f rom the i-nik':) No, it's the only one I have. I'll never af_t it b;:c}: if I give it to you. Mr. Gort: Gloria, will you fix t"at please. Mr. Antoniadis: Excuse me. Is them:; another way that I can project this. Mr. Gort: Thank vou. fair. Campbell: No. Mr. Antoniadis: No. Well, I would like to pass on this to the Board ,Members to get a view of what this is all about. Furthermore, if they are to be granted this variance, they will have to adhere to...(Mr. Antoniadis paused waiting for the Board members 'Lull attention) Mr. Gort: Go right ahead, please. Mr. Antoniadis: Yeah. They will have adhere to reduce their bonus. There is a bonus there for having a split level shops. This constitutes about .2%. In order to have that they would will have to reduce about 11,000 square feet of their building and I'd be most willing if they'd just take it out of my view and everything will be fine. I don't care whether the City will grant them this variance or not as long as they don't...they're not harming me. They also told you that they didn't get any variances. True they didn't get any variances but they did get a relief of sixty parking spaces from the City of Miami. If you're trying to find the plans on this file of application that they made for this particular meeting tonight, you will not find anything related to the de'watering problem except a couple letters that they have requested from their own engineers. The meat of thing is not there. There are only plans as far as landscaping, there plans, architectural plans, and there's also soine self-serving reports. The real report was hidden up in the Public Works Department. I've been trying for three' weeks to get this and purely by some- -zct of ... by so:-,e pjr�a lug- I w:s to find It at the Public whlec-s Cz )e`•t,'.d t0 find it. They state t'nat al 1 the !'S 1i t1'.' t ' t7o!)' t :nC) f :nV e . l6t:1C Stand corCz:CU:-,i. I 'wo--'Id llr:(t t.. .;'_"iI: l �r . J ,_ I-, j is a 9 ructur:..l :nq ne _L .nJ _...: Lo:'1..1 _.,gin t:C 1_ �_'d 1i'1 tI,'_ state of C Iorl;7a M, . F '. i !�,--cn Oh, I)(' or l I CC11n{:11:r• l.L•"oCr _1(.n, 1::C'- '_hi dlc) s not projoct pl1Ot t :;5, To SI',C,•v: 1, j Wr)U l ine to share `.; ith 17cu `_ �_ - t_ _ L � 1 C) r .; i t c: L neiahboriiOnd 1S 1.1a;'{t t':O'v n; . . . .Il j t ;�1,:C _3 iL"L-nur,t7 tills place, the builc3inas til .`: UrrGJi',•:i till:,. L . t:i1'_'.'��::vLS a th(_ P3ora S :''7rllspiCturC-S to the 1S 'ir. Mobley 's building, a two-story LiiIdin;;. T'.is iS clntlnent;:I PI_-. a, a fivc.- story building with a .=_split 1e`:'_1 on ti i)ottom which ry the way has an FAR of ttii`ig roI rtie_S building this one:, In it iS ,oppGS'_v to 2, 4 Of the and ffectively rf,..liy b 1:: '..6..:`_;� !:' :,..ses oi: _.. t;,c'�t{_r. 'Phis is Piayfair, a thirtv-stor':'...a ti-,i.rty feet ilui?ciir.. which will be opposite to theirs. This is t;,- :r :inc lot of '•"7 yf air. As you can see above (.;round, althol,ah ir c:o,,s Iia'Jf? an ind•=rground parking garage that ':oesiz't :a aak.(_p. 'ibis is ti:(_ 1,w building that is surrounded by ;ayfair. ibis is t}":e dewatering site and this is, by the way, tie t'.;o l:(:ildillejS th :t Oil t:,e ,.:c`: side, :ir. Mobley's that surrouno this ar�'a. tills 1S ttie C^cCnut Grove computer building anc. I':� not s`.lre ly--the City' Of Miail"i hcs moved into this one. it's 1nGtIiC L" tiO to 40 iGe_t buil(71ng sand I want to point out, also, that I ha%--e tlhe highest building in the area, 60 feet. They plan to go up 56 feet plus 5 foot of a parapet, being 61 feet. (Pause) I'd also like to --this is my building and these are the views that I'm trying to preserve and ti;is is the dewatering that I mentioned earlier onJ3rd Avenue and how they did it little by little and they were, t::ey're successful and they're building their building instead of to dewater :.heir entire site. (Pause) Finally, I'd like_ to borrow one photo9ra1:)1-1 from the application, if I to. Air. Gort: Your to use t:":is one. iif_re it's got all the sites gad the surrouncIng buildings in it. (Mr. Antoniadis respcnded to 111r. Gort's statement. Inaudible.) (Pause. Staff is looking through the file for the picture Mr. Antoniadis is referring to.) Mr. Antoniadis: There is a photograph inside the file that has the perimeter of the building, of the site, which you will ... you can appreciate a little better. (Pause. Staff is still looking for the photograph.) Mr. Gort: Sir, we do have some otter people waiting. We would appreciate it if you would hurry up... Mr. Antoniadis: I'm almost through. Mr. Gort: ...You still have two experts to speak and... Mr. Antoniadis: Yes, I'm almost through. The applicant's are seeking a variance not only for this site that they're dewatering but also for a site, and they're claiming that they have a hardship on a site that has not even been excavated yet and I give you two photographs of it, one is there own and the other one is a little snapshot that I have. (Mr. Antoniadis gave the pictures to the Board.) I want to thank you and I would like to introduce my expert. Mr. Gort: Mr. Leon: members of the Board... Mr. Gort: sir? Go right ahead. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and +�111 vJu speak into tfi's ;{1}:� please, 6 6 is a structur,.l :n(4litI- nli C 'i _."._10'1 .i=n:jln'rl 1I"t t state of Florida 'lr. F on Oh bef ore I Jnt l l 7t? t ,.<tr , :� 1 , _ L _ _.rl.-- �_ � n, _l..c_ dOQS not projF Ct J--)hotswo 11ci I t0 S11(Dri : ,'-1 I Wp11ir1 Ii::e to sharp_ %•:ith .0 D:-., i-of n,?iahborhood i3 l iKe anC1 ':O'N ." :n . . .. n 3 t la S lT: rn i :d t(11S plcacc , the bill l.,,i ings t(i :;urri:i� ndi til l:; . (''L'. t:i1j C .15 C a JE i.h�= pictures to f:he 110ard a:; This is lr. mc'bley's building, a t',P'o-story buildinc. T'-,is i- :;ntinent 1 P1,�: a, a fi%-c- story building with a split on Uottom wi;ich t y the 'r:av has an FAR of r p (2 rtieS building this cn,-- in it S oppoSr?d ':o .1.4 of ti-O v 'J': Sc,u3re (in(--'] r'ffectively ro:al lV tJei 1 ?.;�61+1ti1 t:}1C' �On-.iS�'6 of This is Mayfair, a thirty-stOr. .d tfiirfe_C--t ih ii ll ing which will be opposite to theirs. Th1, is t'1'? 1?,.L" .liiC lot of i y ?1L As VOLI can see above uround, althouc;h U()es nave an iind�,'rcjround parking gara:je that I t co as Occp. This is ti.e law bUilding that is surrounded by ';Uyfair. This is t_',:e dewaatering site and this 1S, by tiln lti.3y, 1hk:- t-.v0 l lldlfiij;� t hat on t:ie r �Y Side, Mr. Mobley's that surround t'iis arc -a. A, -A this is the GrOVQ3 colilputer building and I':� not SUr�= tX:il t.11--t}1e Cit' of ,-iaiili )-,as moved into this one. It's .a ncther }t) to 40 fec—t building and I want to point out, also, that I have the highest building in the area, 60 feet. They plan to go up 56 feet plus 5 foot of a parapet, being 61 feet. (Pause) I'd also like to --this is my building and these are the views that I'm trying to preserve and this is the dewatering that I mentioned earlier on -rd i%,enue .:nd how t';ey did it little by little and they were, t',ey're successful and they're building thi_ir building instead of waiting to dewat(r their entire site. (Pause) Finally, I'd like to borrow one ohotogr&pii from the application, if I 7,aV b��- allowe:i to. Mr. Gort: four arcico:r:e to use t'":iS one, here it's got all the sitt�s end the surrouncing buildinas in it. (Mr. Antoniadis respcnded to vr. Gort's statement. Inaudible.) (Pause. Staff is lockinc through the file for the picture Mr. Antoniadis is referring to.) Mr. Antoniadis: There is a photograph inside the file that has the perimeter of the building, of the site, wi-ich you will ... you can appreciate a little better. (Pause. Staff is still looking for the photograph.) Mr. Gort: Sir, we do have some other people waiting. We would appreciate it if you would hurry up... Mr. Antoniadis: I'm almost through. Mr. Gort: ...You still have two experts to speak and... Mr. Antoniadis: Yes, I'm almost through. The applicant's are seeking a variance not only for this site that they're dewatering but also for a site, and they're claiming that they have a hardship on a site that has not even been excavated yet and I give you two photographs of it, one is there own and the other one is a little snapshot that I have. (Mr. Antoniadis gave the pictures to the Board.) I want to thank you and I would like to introduce my expert. Mr. Gort: Mr. Leon: members of the Board... Mr. Gort: Sir? Go right ahead. Good evening, Mr. Chairman and VJu StJ,ea:r. into t!" 1.}.` 1J1eZSl 84-217 l_n.I, (._....eL".,:i )r G .OcrJ i nod 7,,e':i,bC rf , iiV n .:;t( i `_ l _,. _ C ' ,. .rc a . I ' : �: U•.. _ ", _ 1? C t i'.' >r,�tic.e in:t r. wort:.',) I ;L"_. it . Don : i f: t n `, �r' 1 -^n .� I=, i•-r;r.o A !IUe is :ry ho :e 3ddress and ��;5 ;�',y tr _t, �..lit'� 04, '•iiami, is the UffiCe re.9S I b:i:s sayir,a r.Il.. _ I' ,-, i:•_ =n in act - iv pr&ctice In the State of Florida sir,,ce' 19 5 fJ d s a r' jist- :U' profe,: `: ion a1 _n,Jine'f_r since 1'3(il. I'�'e :;',_G:17 111 1'ii.li',",'::L"C..l t L-O >::ts In this area c:nd I W%:?t 10 he c?s t`_"ii i?;,r 3t;n ",+=iTlbrrS have been ahead rt `�a1I1Ecj .;_;1 1Ci' fitly IOi j i.;1 t!ii:. C,,: l L W111 only e:--tphasize i!.11 St :t,_'tf:ilt i of fa _ts t.'_. it .., `' IJ,' U '_'i. Jl for tIiP :-,,embers Of the t3CatCj t0 t_c.';C' lurk) Consl:..'t itlon tlit'V az'Y.e a decision In this case. The first state:-,,nt will be r f_rring to wI-,L: you aIre ac?y heard, yOUr rnjl„l :I irGTi th" i'1I;IiC tio'i :S, %r. C :ri:be1I, st'itC'd abOUt the gene ra 1 colid i t ions Oi ti, 1S i,�Ca 1. irf a 1Il i l i,^., 1. , nd the problem of the and t ,,= I,;drologic.l cituaticns tr.,:t we do ha, :e h«arc,. As a :;t: te:,,,_nt of ict, I can thalt the conditions of the local Si'Le are not in the uniuue. They are the same e,_neral conditions that we r too, have in the whole general area of Miami. Actually, perhaps, being the ''liani oolite formation Which is the upper -most section of a geolojic strata, here, thicker than in other areas would be actually even t,�asier to work in so far as the excavation and 6c-watering is concerriE-d. The sand w ,ich is under the Miami oolite appears at tl:is specific site at 27 feet, 26-27 feet below the suriz:ce instead of 15-16 feet t I i & t wits inferred before al:d actually t..:is is stated in the Law Engineer's report which is here in har ds. 5o again ti:c general conditions --the conditions of ;.his site are not specific, general, and this should hav,, been anticir_,, t;:d and :as anticipat,:d as nothing unusual. There are .-,,::.y cases in this area, actually there's One draf;lutic +ass- many `' :L"c ago in ti:e fifties w,en the Burdine's building was constructed in downtown Miami which they referred to the g(_nc_ral contractor fici;ting the water dLirina the construction of the base-mient and the story is that the man got broke by fighting the water. Even cuing back to the construction of the l-;unicipal Building rigi.t t.".ere cn Flaaler an:i I think it's 2nd Avenue, there w;s a situation during tiie�foun6ation, of course they don't have a basement construction there ... with v'_,ry shallow basement construction so they didn't have really that serious problem with dewatering but they had foundation problems that were created amidst of the underground rivers in Miami. That was fifty, so many years ago but anyway, the second statement of fact that I wanted to refer to is that the ... this Board, in my opinion, have been misled and perhaps even the owner of this property or the developers in so far as the approach to this engineering situation in so far as the construction of this building and knowing in advance that they should have had a serious problem of dewatering operation, in my opinion, perhaps they could have thought and this stated in this report, in not going into a full excavation of a foundation but do it in sections to reduce the water problem in the dewatering operation, just, not changing anything but just reducing the volume in sections. A problem, they had gone into the whole excavation and that is creating a heck of a terrible situation. The Board can investigate how many buildings have been constructed in this area with a double parking under the surface and I don't believe that many. Reason being, the serious situation that these gentlemen are experiencing in their construction. It's a serious problem when you fight the excavation in water and it's not an easy, definitely, they already have presented data and numbers and facts that should have been known in advance. But anyway, there are always construction techniques and procedures that are applicable to a situation like this. So they insist that they have a volume of water that they can not dispose. Okay, then change your construction technique and reduce the volume of water by reducing the construction sections. They say ano it is stated here in the Law Engineer's report, they say here On page 41, "If the combination of ,:U11 points and omen pumping does not lower tine 13 Febcuaty i, lyc,Y, it T, -Oning i3oard 84-4"1 '. n F (3 -5 0 7-1 pr,�ctice in this r 1 9 Z ..,I. . Go r t: on r. --nue is d, L 3 rli 7 IS the Urf_ic (2 I. TI. C re 9 wa s s a v i n a c t i c e in the State of F 10 r i t " a S 1 '11 C e 19 5 JA n a I S- nq in( --°I: Since 19611:0 JS 1: t in this area sand I w%-!t to b ('2 a s f s :DC) C2 m br s 0 ,, - 1 a I Z 3 1 - ,, ---- ;'I t 1 will only (2 m p ha s i z e a W St t M n t f f-actts for th-' L of the t 0 - a e i ;I cun s 3 t: t i n n --n3'<e a decision in this case. the first State7i(snt -,.;ill be- ri- f i.: r L7 i n(-, heard, your t'1,2 -_iD I Ic L� ,r. stated - al)ou,.- the 3,--neral conditions -)c, a in i i , -Ind the problem of t h C- lo 12 i c a n d t 1-,,:- 1, y 6 r 0 10 9 i C .� I it'-13 ticn:,; t 'v; P- d:) - Y th a have her('.AS C1 0' -'at, I ::_n t I - - I - �. L conditions of tine local Site are not in the unique. Tl;iey are the same aeneral conditions that we, too, have in the whole general I area of Miami. Actually, perha.p's, being tine Miami oolite formation which is the upper-,ost section of a cc-ologic strata, here, thicker than in other areas would be actually even easier to work in so f a r as the excavation and de-v;aterina is concernkC-1 . TnE Send W'.1ich is under the ',Iiani colite appears at t'specific site at 27 feet, 2 6-27 feet below the surface L. 4, -S !-,ead Of 1-- 16 feet that was inferred before and actually this is Stat(:Jld in the Law Fnaineer's report ',:hick is here in so again t!-,C- general conditions --the conditions of this site are not specific, general, and this should !-a%-(i- been anticir-=.ted and 'V,'as antIcipa-1---o as nothing unusual. T)-,,ere are casc::.s in this ar`a, 3ctJa-lly there's onedramatic Case rs �:(30 in the f i f ti(-:s w - n the Bu rd i ne I s building was constructed in downtown Miami which they referred to the general contractor fictiting the water J",ring the construction of the 'Lasei-nent and the story is that the man got broke by fighting the -v;at-er. Even cuing bac'?,, to tr(. construction of the Municipal Building right t!,-.ere on Flagler ani I it's 4I nd Avenue, there was a situaticn during the foundation, c,f course they don't have a basement Construction there ... With Very shallow basement construction so they didn't have really that serious problem with dewatering but they had foundation problc-ms that were created amidst of the underground rivers in Miami. That was fifty, so many years ago but anyway, the second statement of fact that I wanted to refer to is that the ... this Board, in my opinion, have been misled and perhaps even the owner of this property or the developers in so far as the approach to this engineering situation in so far as the construction of this building and knowing in advance that they should have had a serious problem of dewatering operation, in my opinion, perhaps they could have thought and this stated in this report, in not going into a full excavation of a foundation but do it in sections to reduce the water problem in the dewatering operation, just, not changing anything but just reducing the volume in sections. A problem, they had gone into the whole excavation and that is creating a heck of a terrible situation. The Board can investigate how many buildings have been constructed in this area with a double parking under the surface and I don't believe that many. Reason being, the serious situation that these gentlemen are experiencing in their construction. It's a serious problem when you fight the excavation in water and it's not an easy, definitely, they already have presented data and numbers and facts that should have been known in advance. But anyway, there are always construction techniques and procedures that are applicable to a situation like this. So they insist that they have a volume of water that they can not dispose. okay, then change your construction technique and reduce the volume of water by ci.-:,ducing the construction sections. They say and it is stated here in the Law Engineer's report, they say here on page 41, "if the C); f, i inat(in of .",ull '.Doints and open pumping does not lower tine 13 Febi:uacy 1, I 9tlls tr,T, I Zoning B o a rd 01010 84-214.1 arr)und-.,;at_ L to the c; _._ir =1 _ . .' i;r,, t~;f_n L , In.....t_r tlo..•._ :gust t:e restricted b}' hiIi -ngt pi1in is l .- 1.. ,- +. - i C t 1 t: . :..C:�' �S v: } +_ _:,is _ a G �1 C i -40 to 45 feet hClow thF- i xistin_i :C!:iin(i .s-drf=:CC...1n (7Z:,er w":rds, by ._cL-n'rinU `.:: e L7 t'r, '_i r Ill t''Cf' t:, :: 1o'w of v:::t�'r into the excavation. i'ir. culls::s to t!ie, it 'would hav(: been i1nfc.asiIb1(' t(D Ciri\'e :t IDiIin -i in tt_ _ L"C'xl:^1tV of existing rulldlnCs but t(-C}:nll]U'=S instl- �ad of wing shl., t �,i l in a ;r I�ri � in , s,•_ .t pi i i;,g thf can use a slurry trench techni(lue n-j Ct':E:r 'k ci:ni j'_i =s a'..:i!aole th t will reduce the probl .:a i:,.inatii -i;tiL7 1Y --ny vibrations of the pt:,_)ximity cf tI_ to t1:" existina buildings bU� aIi:In, _.;t: :tom. _��.,1.:;1;..: Jtt 1 1 :LC'::itrC �U you, :iiembcrs of t11,e no,ar.i, i.; t}:..t t1;is k,:il..in(I _t initel.y can be constructed as lesit7nv=1t-Li a!-i n t1, :t thti' will have to face is chan,!iriOJt}'iGlr CU,l::tr�]CtlOn rUrc'3. iyLipl. ying techniques that ar,� r _cad i 1}' a', ai I: b 1 e in ;rd _1: t,' ;;.3�:e it feasible... Xr. Fr(.ixas: ir. C`,airm ? 1.1r. Leon: ...i'm not cic:i.:r,ing that },(cause Of a volume of water that the•. will },ave to dispose during the excava- tion of construction that they can not proc-,ed with this and they will have to change the design and reduce t}:(a amenities or whatever they are talking because I don't believe that this is a correct statement. Thank you very much, centle^I� n. Mr. Gort: ir. FrF ixas: Mr. Gort: questions, I... Mr. Freixas: Mr. Frei xas... I have a question for the gentleman. '•ir. F reixas, if you rave any O'�;av, all right... Mr. Gort: ...I will pl`ase ask you to Suggest them to the end of the }:carinc when we close the p,:alic hearing because if we're gonna }:ave questions hack and forth, we're cor,:%a be here all evening and I can that right no,..., Sc, .. Mr. Freixas: ...All right. Mr. Gort: Anyone else in opposition who wis!:es to speak? Anyone else in opposition that wishes to speak? Once, twice, you've got it. Mr. Fine: 'fir. Gort, members of the Co;nmission, my name is Martin Fine and I apologize for the length of this hearing and I'll be very brief. I think it's very important to understand the nature of what's going on here and we want to be careful not to involve the City in areas that are not, that are between private parties. For example, there's a statement made by the objector under oath, I want to remind him, under oath, about the height of the buildings and I'd like to just share that with you. And he's an architect, he should know that the existing building, that is the building that the applicant seeks to build, is 53 feet 8 inches high, with the parapet it would be 57 feet 2 inches high. The adjacent building, as it is without the parapet is 60 feet high and with the parapet is 63.6 inches high. Now that's just an absolute untruth that was said there earlier and we'll deal with that in the right forum and I would suggest to you that the forum is the Circuit Court where we spent two years with this gentleman and finally went to the District Court of Appeal and won there and again this morning, I will toll you, we filed a civil suit to protect our interests that do not deal with this hearing tonight. So, what I simply want to say to you is we thank you for your time. We do not want to take more of your time rebutting any of this other than to say that there is a hardshiP; it's unique to this site; it's unique, to this project; it's uni :ue- to this s ner; }:e could not have .anticipated it, did n`)t it, .:G nee(5 yU.Jr assist,: ;nce an(i your }:eip. Ut r L 0 i uGlic !n( n' _nd ;,._v .;;...: _; _._ r,l ,.::: i3c ,.r:,, -r ny f .r1i,r iut4.n r -'r r.._--...._..1i,;e to .io it ir. CL7eixaS. 1_ 1, it's jList n v_tiOn _..c t I .rt- t-D .•'.} • i'„1 on, Clj ♦.-a,_ i�r -! ,-i-a+� I �L -.n s, w� IL d �'11. .�� h L �i1 _. i.'-.11t:1[n �� L.1i1t ._ Jl.l L ..t:;.t!_d :n ._i;t:n R na(3 :,I'( ? ,7 3:,.1-:L 0L1gI7 tl'> ;_watering process an(] it rpp/gars to .Te tinat thi:. ;'.ntl�...,an h�.s a k2c ndl ticn taCi:lg 1:0C123S, r!:'Cn We Start+.(i Ui;: 7i , w:r il1U nOt i:1I.;1 v ::tf=r In / ti:=n fro:r. we r nCI t..- t:D 15 jvni a i1alf feet. Sa all I'm ..,_y ing is t.'. =t � arc, tl;.% t",;n_ Soil at that particular loc.tion has _,rt f a �,robl'_I7, i can not i.(e1ieve that t h e 1.2 Wat11C1 SO to ,.1 _. .f:.,. e Of $350,COD and not, and not to soli' _ the r U1+.--'vet ( lip iiUC d tie ,e'thod that "v C I id it and --but we did not en(_au:lt'_r waterto7 f(__t. So, I really bel ieve these l-'ecinle ha J(_ u ina'r7 =i:i I ju53t to as'- t:it: (jentleman that question G t y0U t',now, It :;ad i 'n alIswe1:e<j ric7nt r. V; s U . . . Mr. '`loran—Rih'�aux: Xr. question. I think it was stat`d it myself, if a variant(. 'v.as not in your building? Price, I'd like to ask you a before but I'd like to be sure of granted what would be the change Mr. Price: One of the consider tions we would have to be, now let me i)e perfectly candid with you, we have not redf_sianed the ,wilding var41nc for that continvenc.1 but one of the changes we must consldcr is the fact that We have two public auditoriums which are b.;nus rovisiOTIS Under the ordinance and at the cost that we have involv(_d the project at this time, in order to recapture and :'.lake a reasonaUle return on our investmf:nt, we would have to give serious consideration of having the public ai,ienities deleted from a new site plan. 'w;e could build a building where we would get almo:_t as much of the apartment s_uace and commercial space as we have under this existing building. 'i'he test of a variance is the minimal Variance nLcC:ssary in Jrder to rake the party Whole. le're not asking for 10 additional fret, %'rc asking, in reality, it's going to be about 4-4 1/2 feet in or(:':�r to just raise the building suffici'_ntly that we're able to build under the original concept. Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: In other words, they could rephrase this as to say that if we grant the variance then we'll get those bonuses and if we don't grant the variance, we would just lose the bonuses that you would be offering? Mr. Price: I could not make that absolute statement to you, sir, I would tell you that we would have to give that serious consideration. Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: sir. Mr. Gort: comments or questions? Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: I'd like to make, Willy... Mr. Gort: Right. Okay, thank you very much, Any other comments? Any other Well, I do have a comment here that Yes, sir. Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: ...and I know one case has nothing to do with other. We're judging this case in its particular, by its particular merits. I do believe these people have a problem Witt, the soils. I do believe that not all soils are the szime even though we all have water coming in and out, you 'know, in tC:e Gables area. I don't think they would be as cr,:.zy as to spend h_:1£ a ,,1illicn, dollars trying to solve, trying to circa:w,7ent tide i.rooier.n. I Utllt .'E: that if therf ."s a I-ot i.,_ i i5 i'c-;-ruiry 13, 1904, 84-21 LIE', 0 0 t -i7.;-, tryinr:, to ('0 (3 (D:..rS rD n r F a r. C cl 1 ,1 n r A tit r) n 1,� 1 S 1 7, r the r tji( -j . t- f I- J rt jj n that? *;c, , -.- �) � ',., - a ;1,a n i n � u,; :1 : d - 11 .. . 1: L h e 0 t 11: i !I F U n� ,-I: City. IUM 1Ul V",;S :1- �*,avor what 1 !-,ave to off-fi-r to 'nor-, City is a ` J I- `- %. t is , th,it is tood Lor tFie SOU1 1 0,)C D'= C! U L'1' This 'is 'liow buildin- ibOlit." So J� .Dp ie are ---ISO e u tv . offering p u ID 1 i c 11D --- n e, f i t - are effering These people are OffC-Viri-g a tott s n'- of t,;at if L lire . 3 k� a you know, i f the e i 3 c ' �D S I d _1 4 *-: e tO !7� ion . Mr. Gort: Yoe I to tion? Go ahead. M- r. Moran-Ri beaCampbel ux: Okay. Ir. l, I'd like to ask you a question about the engincering- report please. Ms. Basila: Can't hear you. M ' 1 Yes, Sir. Sne didn't hear you. r . C a T-1 1p b e 11 Mir. Xc r a n - R i b (-:.- au x 0" av, can they actually, could they actually solve this .problem without ,grantina the variance? Is there a mechanical way t*1-,c-y* could go about this? Ca:T,iDb(-- 1. 1 j 1 d be e x r emme II,Y e xD t3 n s i %, e to :-.iy estimation. it could be done possibly. . . Mr. Xloran-Ribc-aux: Like- anything %lou like. � M,r. Campbell: . . . th,_%re is no guarantee. "(It me Say that, there's no guarantee. They .-:fight be trying to pump 3iscayne Bay dry. Mir. Moran-Ribeaux: That -would...(Inaudible) Mr. Campbell: A bit, yes. Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: Okay. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Gort: Go ahead, sir. Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: Okay, I move that the request on agenda item number one be granted for a period of --six or twelve months, will that be convenient for you, sir? Mr. Gort: approval... Okay, there's a motion for Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: To get a permit. Mr. Gort: Is there a second? Mr. Romero: Second. Mr. Gort: It's been moved and seconded. Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: Mr. Chairman... Ms. BaSila: .The applicant is not 'Lind,--- rs r_&nJ ing ,,,,hat the six and t-,qelve months—v.,ould you... Let if 1 T Mr. Gart: '';S. '✓icier: and _r our --Under Zoning ordinance 9500, the Board has to S-?t d tilt: _�' 1f1C for 1.1:e irantlnu of a variance and I br21i,--,ve, tl-leTi,::t:c_'r f _1e TOtlnn +,iS r,=-1j�sU ng whether or not... mr. '•;oran-Ril! - u x : Six : ) r t,%�4_lve -.n,;nths. Ms. Maer: ...ti _it's suffici-lit time for you in light of all the problems. Mr. Price: All riunt, Yc,. ';._:er, based upon your familiarity with the ordinance, if there's int,_r,ening litigation ,3oes that toll the time of thF-- twi-l%e months? ^;r. Perez-L uaones: No, it doesn't count. Ms. Maer: No, it doesn't ha%,e any effect on the tim(--. Mr. Price: All riuht, then we would like- the maximum this Board is authorized to give. Moran-Ril)eaux: Okay, �o I move that the request on agenda item number one be granted for a period of --what was the period again? Ms. Maer: Twelve months. Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: Okay, in which application for a building permit must be made... Mr. Perez-Lugones: with the voluntary dedication. Mr. Moran-Ribeaux: ...with the voluntary dedications as was previously requested. The rl-�quirements of Section 3130.1 were satisfied by relevant evidence in the record of the public hearing as stated in the City's finding of fact and as demonstrated by the petitioner. Mr. Romero: Second. Mr. Gort: Okay, it's been Roved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? Mr. Price: Is that twelve months, sir? Mr. Freixas: Twelve. Mr. Gort: Twelve. Is there any discussion on the motion? Okay, call the roll. Mr. Perez-Lugones: Mr. Chairman, we have a motion to grant with the voluntary dedication of the south 5' of lots 25 and 26 and the east 5' of the south 95' of lot 25. The applicant has twelve months to obtain a building permit as the motion goes. This motion has been made by Mr. Moran and seconded by Mr. Romero. I'll call roll on the motion. AYES: Ms. Basila Messrs. Gort, Romero, Channing, Sands, Freixas and Moran-Ribeaux (Mr. Gort's explanation of his vote) Mr. Gort: Before I vote, I'd like to explain my vote. I think it's been a very enlightening time in here. We've learned a lot about the building, dewatering but the bottom line to this is we have an applicant that's been here, working with the City, with the new ordinance quite a few times, try.ing to set up and put everything and did not come in front of us asking for variances. The only reason they came in front of us is because 17 February 13, 1984, Item 1 Zoning Board 861 217 i tney confronted the,r hro::' rs in here and the bottom line for nhis is are we gonna raise it 6 feet "n! I and"rstand it's going to 0 even less than 6 feet. I on't think that's really that 7ac5 Kat they're asking for and r ' tKat �. rQ ..-_ n I Dt�_ "Yos". NAYES: : None. ABSENT: None. Mr. Perez-Luyonws. Mr. Chairman, the &0t_on to :rant carries unanimously. Any persons desiring to apIool this docision to the City Commission have f iftcnn . ays to do no. in ardor to receive the proper instructions, p1nano _vt in tench with my office. Mr. Gort: 30for" , cu call itom 2, uQ're gunna take a five minute recess. Mr. FQrez-Luaones: Five minute break. RESOLUTION Z 3 14-84 AFTER CONSIDERING THE CITY'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE PPOPOSALS OF THE APPLICANT, THE ZONING I3OLnD ADOPTED RESOLUTION ZB 14-84 GRANTING HE VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE: 9500, AS AMSNDZD, ARTICLE 15, SECTION 1520, SP1-2: COCA_ N f GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND SE:C'TICN 1327, MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO PERMIT C.ONSTRUCT10N CF A MIXED USE PROJECT (GROVE SQUARE) AT 2401 FLORIDA AVENUE, ALSO DESCRIBED AS THE S 95' OF LOTS 25 AND 26 LESS THE E 5.0' THEREOF AND LESS THE S 5.0' THEREOF, BLOCK 4, WILLIAM A. RICE SUB (1-13) AND TRACTS "A" nND -B", GROVE SQUARE (121-83) AS PER PLANS ON FILE, WITH A PROPOSED MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 56.0' (50.0' PERMITTED) XND WITH THE `,%OL�NTARY DEDICATION OF THE S 5' OF LOTS 25 AND 26 AND THE E 5' OF THE S 9' OF LOT 25; ZONED SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THIS VARIANCE HAS A TIME LIMITATION OF 12 MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED. 18 Fasruary ,_, 19S4, I _em 1 . i no ., . 84-21 2/17/84 RESOLUTION] NO. ZB 14-84 A RESOLUTION GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, ARTICLE 15, SECTION 1520, SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND SECTION 1527, MAXIMUM HEIGHT TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE PROJECT (GROVE SQUARE) AT 2801 FLORIDA AVENUE, ALSO DESCRIBED AS THE S 95' OF LOTS 25 AND 26 LESS THE E 5.0' AND THE S 5.0' THEREOF, BLOCK 4, WILLIAM A. RICE SUB (1-13) AND TRACTS "A" AND "B", GROVE SQUARE (121-83) AS PER PLANS ON FILE, WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 56.0' (50.0' PERMITTED) SUBJECT TO THE DEDICATION OF THE S 5' OF LOTS 25 AND 26 AND THE E 5' OF THE S 9' OF LOT 25; ZONED SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. THIS VARIANCE HAS A TIME LIMITATION OF 12 MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its public hearing of February 13, 1984, after careful consideration of the Petition for Variance and having heard presentations and testimony from both the proponents and the objecters to the variance sought herein, finds that there are peculiar circumstances affecting this parcel of land and practical difficulties which would impair the owner's right to the reasonable use of the property in the absence of the variance as hereinafter set forth; a NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ZONING BOARD OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. All of the requirements and standards set forth in Section 3103.1 of Zoning Ordinance No. 9500 are hereby found to have been demonstrated by the Petitioner for the variance from Ordinance No. 9500, as amended, Article 15, Section 1520, SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT and Section 1527, Maximum Height to permit construction of a mixed use project (Grove Square) at 2801 Florida Avenue, also described as the S 95' of Lots 25 and 26 less the E 5.0' and the S 5.0' thereof, Block 4, William A. Rice Sub (1-13) and Tracts "A" and "B", Grove Square (121-83) as per plans on file, with a maximum height of 56.0' (50.0' Permitted), Zoned SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE 84-21 ..4 U CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. Section 2. The variance from Ordinance No. 9500, as amended, Article 15, Section 1520, SPI-2: C00014UT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT and Section 1527, Maximum Height to permit construction of a mixed use project (Grove Square) at 2801 Florida Avenue, also described as the S 95' of Lots 25 and 26 less the E 5.0' and the S 5.0' Thereof, Block 4, William A. Rice Sub (1-13) and Tracts "A" and "B", Grove Square (121-83) as per plans on file, with a maximum height of 56.0' (50.0' Permitted) subject to the dedication of the S 5' of Lots 25 and 26 and the E 5' of the S 9' of Lot 25; Zoned SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, is hereby granted. Section 3. This variance has a time limitation of twelve months in which a building permit must be obtained. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of February , 1984. AYIq T T :: & All Aulm -III API-L E Executive Secretary GMM/wpc/ab/221 C air7 t Zoning Board 2 84a-217 10 Ralph Ongie City Clerk Aurelio E . 0d"r4L5i-lugah' es Director Planning and Zoning Boards Administration Department February 24, 1984 RESOLUTION - APPEAL BY OBJECTORS 2801 FLORIDA AVENUE COMMISSION AGENDA - FEBRUARY 28, 1984 PLANNING AND ZONING ITEM #,11 I. SOILS REPORT (LAW ENG REPORT) 2. LAW DEPT MEMO DATED 2/24/94 At the request of the Law Department we are transmitting a copy of the Law Engineering Report dated December 8, 1982 for the Grove Square Project. The Law Department has instructed that this report be made available at your office for inspection by interested citizens. AEPL:III I M/I'- 84-217 CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO Aurelio Perez-Lugones, Director Dept. of Administration of Planning and Zoning Board FROM toiam Maer Assistant City Attorney DATE February 24, 1984 FILE SUBJECT "Grove Square" Transmittal REFERENCES of Record on Appeal IENCLOSURES This will confirm our discussion of February 22, 1984, in which I advised you to file the Law Engineering Report, consisting of approximately 80 pages, with the City Clerk, and to indicate on the Index of the Record on Appeal that, for administrative con- venience, you have filed the entire Law Engineering Report with the City Clerk. GMM/br 84-21'7 , INT. -R C):7F'ICc '& 'AORAiJ6UM Aurelio Perez-Lugones, Director a,: February 22, 1984 Planning & Zoning Boards Grove Square Project D na . ZCatVhr Soils Report of Director of Public Works December 8, 1982 Attached please find a copy of the soils report prepared by Law Engineering dated December 8, 1982, for the Grove Square Project located at Mary Street and Florida Avenue. Also attached is the original transmittal letter of this report to me from Mr. Peter Blicher of Interdevco-Grove Square, Inc. dated January 19, 1984. These documents are transmitted to you so that they can be made part of the public record. JJK:td 84-"21 � . � M Y f' f , I January 19, 1984 Mr. Don Cather 1r Director lip r� CITY OF MI.414I PUBLIC WORKS �.� / ti 275 N.W. 2nd Street - 4th Floor Miami, FL 33133 RE: SOILS REPORT Dear Mr. Cather: Pursuant to your request, enclosed please find a copy of the soils report done by Law Engineering for Grove Square. If you should have any questions relating to the report, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Peter Blicher Vice President Interdevco-Grove Square, Inc. PB:gah Enc. DEVELOPED BY INTERDEVCO 3326 MARY STREET, COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA 33133 T E L E P H 0 N E( 3 0 5) 4 4 2- 8 3 0 0 LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY REPORT OF GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION GROVE SQUARE PROJECT MULTI - LEVEL COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA LETCO JOB NO. ML-2681 DECEMBER 8, 1982 I 11 LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY/ fp�leUrwa e'""V•wnal 6 ctyistnr.tcr+ ..ale wis ctrnitanls 200 StN LOP='J70 A-"JU ORA,, ES FLOPbA J3'»F i3'"o 4."-102', December 8, 1982 Interdevco - Grove Square 100 N. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2111 Miami, Florida 33132 Attention: Mr. Mike Balais Construction Director Subject: Report of Geotechnical Exploration Grove Square Project Multi -Level Commercial and Residential Building Coconut Grove, Florida LETCO Job No. ML-2681 Gentlemen: Law Engineering has completed the geotechnical exploration for the proposed project. Our work was performed in general accordance with our Proposal No. MS-2052.69, dated November 8, 1982. Our work was formally authorized and our General Conditions accepted by the submission of an executed copy of Law Engineering's Proposal Acceptance Sheet by Mike Balais on November 9, 1982. Law Engineering's initial work on this project consisted of preliminary field and laboratory exploration and testing, the results of which were submitted in an Interim Report of Geotechnical Exploration, dated February 2, 1982, LETCO Job No. ML-2605. This report presents our understanding of the project, outlines our exploratory procedures, summarizes the data obtained, and presents our geotechnical recommendations for foundation design, geotechnical site preparation, waterproofing, construction dewatering, and permanent stormwater discharge. 84-21 if I •r F; a a We appreciate the opportunity to provide our aeotechnical engineering services and are available to discuss our recommendations with you. If you have any questions, or if we may he of further assistance, please contact our Coral Gables office. J Very truly yours, LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY -c /-Ji�Fr-!i ro, P.E. 7 Geotechnical Engineer Florida Registration No. 31901 Thomas J aderabek, P.E. E-y 4d Senior Geotechnical Engineer Florida Registration No. 26023 1 /D�vid kh11 esL/. Senior Geotechnical Engineer Florida Registration No. 12414 OB/TJK/LOld:sp Attachment: Final Invoice xc: Mr. Leonard R. t-larkowi tz/fiorse-Oi esel , Inc. 1 2 1 84-21 i . 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.1 Site Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.2 General Area Geology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 3.3 Subsurface Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.4 Groundwater Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.0 EVALUATION. . . . . . . . % . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 4.1 Determination of Soil and Rock Properties. . . . . . . . . 15 4.2 Foundation Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 4.2.1 Punching Shear Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2.2 Compression Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 4.2.3 Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 4.3 Allowable Settlement 21 1,e 4.4 Groundwater Fluctuations 23 4.5 Excavation Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 24 4.6 Waterproof ng. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 4.7 Construction Dewatering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 5.0 RECOMME NDAT I ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5.1 Mat Foundation Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 5.2 Geotechnical Site Preparation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.3 Groundwater Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 5.4 Groundwater Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 5.5 Waterproofing Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 5.6 Construction Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 oo 5.7 Cost Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.8 Basis for Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 i 84�-21"9'. �YR'��iT �, ,%��Y�i:"�iJ.�iJ'•i.. t: �-•.. K �,i �•� ,.yiy ty �'.�` �'�.�xv,Y' IT1 '.�Y�.., ^.p�I✓—..a.:�f ►'7 �,�'i�t?W� > A�'=1. L.... TABLE OF CONTENTS Paae APPENDIX Site Location Plan (Drawing No. 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Test Location Plan (Drawing No. 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2 Generalized Subsurface Profile (Drawing No. 3). . . . . . . . . A-3 Field Exploration Procedures. . . . . . . .•. . . . . . . . . . A-4 Standard Penetration Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5 Rock Coring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5 Borehole Percolation Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6 Laboratory Testing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8 Soil Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A -A Grain Size Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8 Trench Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9 Trench Test No. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9 Trench Test No. 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-10 Trench Test No. 3. . . . . . . . . . . • • • • • • • • . . A-11 Trench Test No. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12 Groundwater Recovery Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-13 Borehole Seepage Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-15 Laboratory Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-16 Grain Size Distribution Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-17 Key Classification and Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-20 Test Boring Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-21 ii 84"217 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPENDIX Site Location Plan (Drawing No. 1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1 Test Location Plan (Drawing No. 2). . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2 Generalized Subsurface Profile (Drawing No. 3). . . . . . . . . A-3 Field Exploration Procedures. . . . . . . .•. . . . . . . . . . A-4 Standard Penetration Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5 Rock Coring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5 Borehole Percolation Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6 Laboratory Testing Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8 Soil Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8 Grain Size Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8 Trench Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9 Trench Test No. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9 Trench Test No. 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-10 Trench Test No. 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-11 Trench Test No. 4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12 Groundwater Recovery Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-13 Borehole Seepage Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-15 Laboratory Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-16 Grain Size Distribution Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-17 Key Classification and Symbols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-20 Test Boring Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-21 ii 84-217 f 1.0 INTRODUCTIO14 1 The purpose of our exploration was to obtain information concerning subsurface geologic and groundwater conditions at the subject site, in order to provide geotechnical recommendations for foundation desian and construction, site preparation, waterproofing, dewatering, and storm -water Idisposal. This report discusses our exploratory procedures, presents our findings and conclusions, and includes the following items: ° The results of pumping tests performed within a backhoe-excavated trench within the Miami Limestone. Pumping tests were performed at depths of 20, 24 and 26.5 feet below existing grade. f0 The results of pumping tests performed within boreholes installed within the porous Fort Thompson limestone stratum. The pumping tests were performed at depths of 34.5 and 41.5 feet below existing grade. The results of constant head borehole permeability tests performed within boreholes installed within the Fort Thompson limestone stratum. The constant head tests were performed at depths of 34.5, 41.5, 44, 46 and 85 feet below existing grade. jThe results of a constant head permeability test performed in an open borehole installed within the Miami Limestone. The open t borehole depth below existing grade was about 24 feet. t A brief discussion of our field testing procedures and the results t obtained. A review of existing subsurface information as identified in our Interim Report of Geotechnic al Exploration. ° Site and test location plans indicating the geographic project location the approximate g p a t • pproximate test locations and the extent of the proposed construction. 1 84-21'7 0 c A brief review of area and site aeolooic conditions. A general review of topographical features and site conditions. An estimate of the engineering properties of the soil and rock during the geotechnical exploration, along with the encountered estimated strata thicknesses. o An estimate of shallow foundation performance based on available data. c Recommendations for foundation design, including shallow foundation bearing pressures, considering the anticipated hydrostatic uplift forces. e Recommendations for geotechnical site preparation. e Location of the groundwater level and possible fluctuations which may occur during and after construction. e A discussion of potential problems associated with groundwater control during construction. e Recommendations for a temporary dewatering system and a method of disposal of groundwater from construction dewatering. C Recommendations for a permanent system for on -site stormwater • discharge. that e A discussion of waterproofing and/or damp -proofing systems may be used for the proposed construction. G Recommendations for a permanent waterproofing system for the lower levels of the proposed building. C An evaluation of excavation stability during construction. G An evaluation of excavation stability considering the existing adjacent six -story structure. A preliminary discussion of the various costs associated with foundation systems, retaining structures, damp -proofing systems, temporary dewatering and permanent stormwater disposal system construction. 2 84--21'7. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Initial information concerning this project was received in a telephone conversation with Mr. Jonathan Stanley of Interdevco, Inc. on December 22, 1981. Subsequent information was provided by ,'Messrs. Tony Riva of Martin, Cagley and Riva, Structural Engineers, and Peter Blicher, Vice President of Interdevco Development Company, in a meeting with Thomas J. Kaderabek of Law Engineering on September 29, 1982. The following plans and drawings have been provided for our use: o A set of drawings entitled "Fairgrove, Interdevco Corporation" including Sheets 1 through 15. These drawings include project and building plan views, building levels plan views, building profiles and individual apartment plan views. C A building cross-section drawing prepared by Eric Mespons/Pedro Goicouria, A.I.A., Architects, for the Grove Square project, Sheet 22. b A Site Survey, prepared by Manuel G. Vera and Associates, Inc., Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners, dated November 5, 1981, Job No. 81-05-170. o A set of drawings prepared by Antoniadis Associates, Architects, Planners, prepared for the Office Building at 3326 'Mary Street. We were given Sheets S-1, S-2, S-3 and S-5 of these drawings, which included the Roof Framing Plan, Foundation Plan, Typical Floor Plan, Sixth Floor Plan, Cross -Section of the Buildinq, and General Structural Notes. The proposed construction will consist of an 8-level reinforced concrete building. Specifically, the building will have 2 levels of 3 1 84- 21'7 , _ �' _ � 1. 7 �.-F._ _ - K•+�.yp.r : �_gyp., _� 1 underground parking, an underground court, an above -grade plaza and 4 levels of above -grade commercial and residential space. The proposed building will be "L"-shaped in plan view and will cover an approximate footprint area of about 27,000 square feet. We understand that the lowest level of underground parking will be constructed with a finished floor elevation of about -4 feet MSL, or approximately 22 feet below existing grade. We estimate that this will require excavation depths on the order of 26 feet below existing grade, or an approximate elevation of -8 feet MSL. Fill placement is not anticipated with the proposed construction. We understand that specific architectural details, including building shape, location and dimensions have not been finalized at the present time. In addition, structural design information such as column loadings and bay spacings havenot been finalized. For the purpose of our evaluation, however, we have estimated building loads and bay spacings based on data provided and our past experience with similar structures. We estimate individual maximum column loads for the R-story structure _ to be on the order of 800 kips. Based on drawings provided to us, we estimate bay spacings will be on the order of 19 by 19 feet, and 19 by 42 feet. We also estimate an average building footprint bearing pressure of 1,000 psf. 4 84--217 We also understand that the Grove Square project is planned to be developed in two phases. Our geotechnical exploration to date, and our evaluations and recommendations summarized in this report, pertain to the first phase, or Phase One, of the proposed development. It is our understanding that Phase Two of the Grove Square project will involve construction on properties immediately north of Phase One site boundaries. The design drawings of the existing six -story "Architect's Building", located at 3326 Mary Street in Coconut Grove, were provided by Davis Engineers, P.A., and were reviewed briefly by our office. Although the drawings do not necessarily represent as -built conditions, some general interpretations were made. These drawings indicate that the building design utilized a shallow y spread foundation designed for a 6,000 psf average bearing pressure. The building architect, who currently works on the building's 6th floor, indicated that foundations bear about 5 feet below existing grade on "coral rock". Based on the foundation plan, top -of -footing elevations were noted to range from about 0'0" to +3' - 4-3/4" (construction datum). Footing thicknesses ranged from about 1-1/2 to 3-1/2 feet. On the southwestern corner of this building, the foundation plan indicates that a stairwell, with an exterior concrete unit masonry wall, was to be built right up to the south property line. This is the property line adjacent to the Grove Square site. We understand that this wall 5 ' - �ar•,+tisr:;:a:.•...xa,r� r.:t:a�3Sini•_r;.t.;'�:.t" `Ts:C 84-21'7 14 extends the full height of the building. The foundation plan does not indicate the types or bearing elevation of the foundations for the stairwell wall or the south building wall. R 84-217 0 3.0 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 3.1 Site Conditions f� The project site was visited by the following members of Law Engineering's professional staff during the course of our exploration: Thomas J. Kaderabek, David Barreiro, Kirk A. McIntosh, and Charles Arguinzoni. The Grove Square site is located in the Village of Coconut Grove, Miami, Florida, as indicated on the appended Drawing No. 1. More specifically, the site is bounded by Clary Street to the east, Rice Street to the west, Florida Avenue to the south and Oak Avenue to the north. The site has an approximate overall plan area of 35,000 square feet. At the time of our geotechnical exploration, most portions of the site had been cleared of buildings and vegetation. The remaining vegetation at the site was generally observed along the fringes of the property. Remaining vegetation includes oak, mango, Royal Poinciana and coconut trees, and grasses and weeds. Existing site development at the time of our aeotechnical exploration _ included a 2-story wood frame structure, a Grove Square sales trailer on the eastern end of the site, and perimeter hurricane fencing. Site development in the vicinity of the project site includes a 2-story CBS structure to the west, one story CBS"and wood frame structures 7 84m 17 to the north, a 6-story reinforced concrete building inmediately north of the eastern portion of the site, and a 4-level reinforced concrete structure (The Mayfair) to the south. We understand that some of the one -level buildings north of the project site are planned to be demolished pecause-of the proposed construction. Surficial soils were observed to consist of a thin veneer of loose, quartz and calcareous, medium to fine sands underlain by limestone. The surficial limestone stratum (Miami Limestone) was observed to outcrop in the north and central portions of the site. The present site topography is generally level with some sloping toward the northwest corner of the property. A localized low elevation area was observed in this northwest portion of the property with surficial soils consisting of tan -orange, loose calcareous and quartz medium to fine sands to depths of several feet below existing grade. Existing ground surface elevations at the site, as indicated in the site survey provided to us, range from about +15 to +20 feet MSL. 3.2 General Area Geology The project site is located along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, south and west of the Silver Bluff Ridge, a local expression of the Atlantic Coastal Ridge. The Atlantic Coastal Ridge is a coastal topographic feature Slightly higher in elevation than the Everglades Physiographic Province to �. the west. 8 84-21"i' a � , The project site is underlain by about 150 feet of alternating deposits of limestone, sandstone and quartz sands. These sedinents were deposited during the glacial and interglacial stages of the Pleistocene Epoch (10,000 to 2,000,000 years before present). Sediments of different geologic character, Pliocene and Miocene Epoch, underly the project site at greater depths. Our geotechnical exploration disclosed subsurface conditions compatible with the geological site description given above. Specifically, two distinct geologic formations were encountered within the explored depths. These formations are, in descending order, the Miami Limestone and Fort Thompson Formation. Soils overlying the tliami Limestone at the site include undifferentiated recent deposits of shelly marine sands. 3.3 Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions were explored with a total of 5 soil test borings, 3 well borings, and one backhoe-excavated test pit performed at .the approximate locations shown in Drawing No. 2 in the Appendix of this report. All test locations and depths were suggested by Law Engineering. The actual field boring and test pit locations were staked by Law Engineering personnel using a cloth tape to measure from existing buildings and curbs. The locations of the borings and the test pit should be considered accurate 9 84-21'7 , V :1 only to the degree implied by the methods used. A description of our field testing procedures is included in the Appendix of this report. The detailed subsurface conditions encountered at the boring and test pit locations are shown on the Test Boring Records and Record of Test Pit Excavation, respectively. The Test Boring Records represent our interpretation of the field logs based on engineering examination of soil and rock samples and laboratory testing performed on selected soil samples. The lines designating the interfaces between various strata represent approximate boundaries and the transition between materials may be.gradual. The Generalized Subsurface Profile, included in the Appendix, was developed through geological interpretation of the boring data. It should UN be considered an accurate representation of the subsurface conditions at ' 14 the boring locations only. The subsurface conditions encountered are discussed below. Over most portions of the project site, the top of near -surface limestone stratum will probably be encountered from about existing grade to a depth of several inches below existing grade. This near -surface limestone is the Miami Limestone. This formation is exposed along the southeastern margin of the Florida Peninsula in the Miami area, composing - the Miami and Silver Bluff Ridge, and also appears in the lower Florida Keys. 10 J 84-217' 4 The Miami Limestone encountered at the project site consisted of a moderately -hard to soft, slightly porous to very porous, oolitic to slightly oolitic grainstone. This surficial limestone was encountered from about existing grade and extended to depths of 26 to 28 feet below existing grade. Standard Penetration Resistance values (blows/foot) for the Miami Limestone ranged from 6 to 74 and averaged about 23. One backhoe-excavated test pit was performed during the geotechnical exploration. The test pit had approximate plan dimensions of 4 by 18 feet and was excavated to a depth of about 27 feet below existing grade. Other areas adjacent to the test pit were also excavated to depths of up to 14 feet below existing grade. The horizontal and vertical continuity and integrity of the Miami Limestone stratum were observed in the excavation. The maximum groundwater drawdown during pumping tests exposed approximately the upper 22 feet of the rock formation. Subsequent to the pumping trench tests, David Barreiro and Charles Arguinzoni of Law Engineering dove into the open excavation to ascertain the continuity and integrity of the linestone from depths of about 22 to 27 feet below existing grade. The Miami Limestone was observed to be moderately hard to medium, slightly porous and chalky to a depth of about 15 feet below existing grade. The limestone was observed to be medium, porous and somewhat chalky from about 15 to 21 feet below existing grade. From depths of about 21 to 27 feet below existing grade, the limestone is generally medium to sr`t,• 11 A 84-21121 a porous to very porous, with the solution channels partially filled with quartz fine sand. At the test pit location, the Miami Limestone extended to depths of 27 to 28 feet below existing grade. i The Fort Thompson Formation encountered at the project site, to the explored depths, includes the sand and limestones which underly the Miami Limestone. The upper portions of the Fort Thompson Formation consisted of firm to very loose, tan -white to brown quartz fine sand with limestone fragments. Zones within this sand layer were observed to be partially cemented. The Fort Thompson sand was encountered immediately beneath the Miami Limestone and extended to depths varying from about 34 to 46 feet below existing grade. The thickness of the sand layer ranged from about 7 to 19 feet and averaged about 11 feet. The standard penetration resistance . values within the sand ranged from 1 to 14 and averaged about 7. Underlying the sand layer, the borings encountered a medium to hard, tan to brown, porous to very porous shel ly quartz sandy limestone. In we11 borings No. 1 and No. 3, moderately hard, tan porous coralline limestone was also encountered. Numerous drilling fluid losses were noted during the boring operations. The standard penetration resistance in the Fort Thompson limestone ranged from 10 to more than 100 and averaged about 40 blows per foot. 12 it 84-211;1 Zones of weakly -cemented sandy limestone and/or sand may be encountered within the Fort Thompson limestone unit. The maximum depth of exploration was about 85 feet. Based on the data collected durinq our geotechnical exploration and our past experience and knowledqe of this geologic formation, we anticipate that sand zones and sandstone lenses may be encountered throughout the depths of the formation. The appended Test Boring Records and Generalized Subsurface Profile should be reviewed for more detailed information on the various strata thicknesses, standard penetration resistance, percent core recovery and percent RQD at the various test locations. 3.4 Groundwater Conditions The groundwater level was encountered in all soil test borings and the test pit performed for the geotechnical exploration. Our initial field exploration was performed in January of 1982. At that time, the groundwater level was measured between 15 and 17.5 feet below existing grade, an approximate elevation range of +3 to +1.5 feet MSL. The oroundwater levels measured during the present geotechnical exploration were generally at 14.5 to 15 feet below existing grade, an elevation of about +3 feet 14SL. The groundwater permeating through the Miami Limestone and Fort Thompson sand strata was not noticeably brackish or salty (to taste). As indicated by the groundwater levels measured at the two different times of 13 84t-21 , 11 0 4 the year, fluctuations of the groundwater level may occur seasonally due to rainfall, surface runoff, construction activities and other factors. Due to the proximity of the project site to Biscayne Bay, the groundwater level will probably also fluctuate, to.a decree, in accordance with tidal variations. 14 a 4.0 EVALUATION The following evaluations are based on the project information outlined in Section 2.0 of this report and the data gathered during our subsurface explorations at the project site. If actual project information differs from that which we have considered, we should be informed so that actual project characteristics can be used to determine whether modifications to the recommendations in this report are necessary. 4.1 Determination of Soil and Rock Properties The field and laboratory test data were correlated to the engineering properties of the soils and rocks. Elastic and strength properties of the t sandy soils encountered at the project site were estimated from the correlation for the Standard Penetration Test (SPT) given below: Standard Penetration Test Modulus of Elasticity N (blows/foot) E (ksf) 5 260 10 360 15 460 20 560 30 770 50 1200 These correlations to modulus values were obtained from Webb, D.L., "Settlement of Structures on Deep Alluvial Sandy Sedinents in Durban, South Africa", Conference on In -Situ Behavior of Soil and Rock, Institute of Civil Engineers, London,'1969. 15 84-21 I . i it IElastic and strength properties for the near -surface limestone (!Miami Limestone) and lower Fort Thompson limestone encountered at the project site were estimated from laboratory rock testing performed on similar rock I 1 types for r the Dade County Metrorail project and other projects in Dade County. Laboratory rock testing included unconfined compression and splitting tensile rock tests. The following table summarizes our estimated subsurface soil and rock Istrength modulus values, in descending order, at the project site: I TABLE I SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED SOIL AND ROCK STRENGTH MODULI Average Strata Depth Below Modulus of Existing Grade (Ft) Soil/Rock Description Elasticity (ksf) I 0 to 27 Slightly porous to very porous 1,000 to 15,000 oolitic LIMESTONE 27 to 38 Quartz fine SAND with some limestone 100 to A50 fragments 38 to 85* Porous to very porous shelly quartz 5,000 to 20,000 sandy LIMESTONE and very porous coral ne t TONE *Interspersed sand zones and sandstone lenses nay be encountered _ within this depth range. The sands will probably be in a loose to firm relative density condition. The sandstone lenses are usually characterized with relatively high strength modulus values, estimated magnitudes of 25,000 to 75,000 ksf. Rock core recovery and RQD values obtained for the Miami Limestone and Fort Thompson limestones at the project site were used to correlate to similar rock types for which laboratory test data is available. The 16 84-21'7 estinated allowable design strength values and elastic properties of the for the Miami Limestone used in our evaluations subject vroject are as follows: ° Unconfined compressive strength: Depth below. existing grade = 0 to 15 feet. . . . . . . 15 ksf Depth below existing grade = 15 to 27 feet . . . . . . 6 ksf c Shear strength: Depth below existing arade = 0 to 15 feet. . . . . . . 5 ksf Depth below existing grade = 15 to 27 feet . . . . . . 2 ksf ° Modulus of elasticity: Depth below existing arade = 0 to 15 feet. . . . . 7,000 ksf Depth below existing grade = 15 to 27 feet . . . . 1,000 ksf The strength values indicated above are estinated values, based on data obtained from other projects in Dade County. The actual strennth values for the specific limestone conditions at the subject site may vary from our estimates. 4.2 Foundation Evaluation A shallow foundation system consisting of a reinforced concrete nat �J foundation was evaluated for support of the proposed construction. In considering a shallow foundation system, a rat foundation was judged to he Preferable over individual spread footings, in that a mat will he more efficient in resisting the anticipated hydrostatic loadings. 17 S4r21 / T A mat foundation system supporting the proposed construction and as bearing approximately 26 feet below existing grade (elevation of about -8 feet MSL) will result in transfer of foundation stresses to the lower portions of the Miami Limestone and the underlying sand layer. These foundation stresses will result in immediate settlement of this limestone and underlying sand strata. Generally, the near -surface limestone acts as a ricid mat over the looser underlying sands, in supporting building loads. When this occurs, the foundation stresses induce beam tension stresses at the bottom of the limestone stratum. However, the anticipated mat foundation bearing depth at the subject project will require excavation of most of the limestone stratum over the entire building area. Cur geotechnical study has indicated that there may be up to 2 feet of the Miami Limestone stratum remaining below the anticipated mat foundation bearing elevation, as illustrated on the Generalized Subsurface Profile on the following page. This thin rock condition will probably not result in beam tension stresses developing at the bottom of the limestone unit. We anticipate that the predominant limestone failure mechanism might be diagonal tension failure or punching shear of the Miami Limestone. Our evaluation of mat foundation performance considered the following failure mechanisms: 1) punching shear or diagonal tension failure of the Miami Limestone, 2) compression or crushing of the Miami Limestone, and 3) settlement. 18 84-21'7 COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA IL.AW ENGINEERING TESTING COMCY CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA LETCO JOB NO. ML 2681 TRENCH i e. r to c tic ° oe ° tic c tic ° e c r c e c e o e e e e t. rtr rerrof reeDeef t.etc rrf °°e a°t aec et .t ester ° Ot ! r tt rite, e°e rt°or°°Dec°Oc i of cc ace e°e of . r ea , -.ttfttcfr0crrtCO°eOlrtO .t.erteo`t°e ete ate oee e° .- r et r er r tic r tie ° e ^t` t �; rrse a O0°e°e°eeitc a ertcr°°oee°eD°°ere°erec �r Dto a°i `ere ate ate° e°e • .::t.��t��::«.:vegooa iAMI LIt..ESTONE tti iri crC e°o e°o o°e� ,• OC r !f r ot r DC ° OO •f rtf rrc ere e°e ece e° Dee°sc °eerer°oere4 ._etc ate a°c e°e ate • e•rreror°oteeetcoo •a 'rrc 6.6o e° 00 eco! e°o e° a: r OC r Or e0 00 ° el rtcr°ctr°teec t:% .Dee°et tt'rcoK .°!rc°!De°! � Of OC el �eDe ate ate t°e ate oerot °ostee°eotee° fe rte eeo e°e a°o ate e° . se°erret°eereo°eo°se or °°ee°O oe ° oe ° Do . Do°O ..clecCoo csee ooeee°eoo°e!o roe t ecole.DOCoo DODe tft ieco e°e so : cee° s ° free°ee°oeree°seeef :D°Oeo°Dee°Dee°Oe4°Osa�Oe' -tie � eo r tie r oo ° tie ° tie ° tie ° eo ° tie ° e : rtc.Icc De°ooee°ere°oDo°eDe°oee°eDo°et r DeoaoC eoDooeD000°o.nooe rc ere oeo eeo ere cooDo aDe :fDi a°� o°� e°o°e°i a ooe°, — — oe roe ° oe ° ° o0 •c etOle °o c°o t°e o°e o°COO .. OD 00 00 00 00 C Do r 4c roe De0 ° N° 00°OO°00°00°DOD :Df O°O o'0 O°O e°O O°O OC ° Ot r Oc V OD c tie ° OO ° 00 •.etc r°e e°e a°° a°e ate ate o°o o°e tc r Ot c 00 ° O! ° 00 ° 00 ° DD ° 00 ° 00 ° -c rrc eco ate e°e a°c a°o e°o e°e eD .r t 0' L O �' Ol: C 0 �C Oo Y 00 O� _ O G p b °eceec NITICIPATED ° .�0 -, i FOUNDATION ,oa FARING DEPTH—� :f D! eDc o°o a°o o°e etc :tc$oo_epo�ee�eo$oo UARTZSAND tt„ WB-2 CASED TO __41.5' 41.5' ►. :.JARTZ SANDY AND CORALLINE ::EST NE SCALE: 1" = 5' V�RTICCALAL WB-3 CASED TO _-79' WB-1 e DEPTH BELOW EXISTING GRADE (FT °,tiler—+s-oDv eeoeoeeet 0 tic o 0o t DD o 0o o eo ooe ooe ooe oee o00i D O 00 D 00 I Oe a Coo ° ,e oDe oee o00 oee o, NOTES: _ 1) SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS ARE EXTRAPOLATED BETWEEN TEST LOCATIONS BASED ON ENGINEERING JUDGMENT. 2) APPROXIMATE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATION AT TEST LOCATIONS IS 418 FEET MSL. 3) REFER TO TEST BORING RECORDS AND GENERAL- IZED SUBSURFACE PROFILE FOR MORE DETAILED SUBSURFACE INFORMATION CASED TO 7A. B.T. @ 85' S.T. @ 44' STABILIZED GROUNDWATER LEVEL 5 10 15 20 25 2E 30 35 40 19 54-21if 0. These failure modes are basically a function of the total compressive load(s) applied to the bearing strata. Following is brief discussion of these failure mechanisms. 4.2.1 Punching Shear Failure - The condition of punching shear or diagonal tension failure of the 14iami Limestone was evaluated using the loading conditions estimated by us. We have evaluated the effect that the total building load would have on the relatively thin limestone section remaining below bearing level. The punching shear stress was estimated as the total building loading on the entire building footprint area, divided by the perimeter of this area, and divided by the thickness of the limestone below the bearing level. An average limestone thickness below bearing level of 2 feet was considered in our evaluation. Based on the above conditions, we estimate that the limestone will probably shear under the influence of the foundation stresses. 4.2.2 Compression Failure - We evaluated the factor of safety against a compression failure of the Miami Limestone under maximum corner or edge - stress. Our evaluation considered the estimated strength properties of the limestone as summarized in Section 4.1 of this report. We estimate a factor of safety against a compression failure of the limestone of at least 2 will exist beneath a mat foundation bearing in the lower portions of the Miami Limestone stratum. 20 31 84-217 , 4.2.3 Settlement - Our evaluation of a mat foundation system included ' an estimate of total and differential settlements expected over the project site. Our estimated soil and rock strength modulus values were utilized to analyze settlement by the following method: 1) Stress Distribution Technique (Kaderabek and Reynolds, "Settlement Beneath Preload Test Fill", i Journal of Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, June 1979). This method considers settlement as a result of total building load. The proposed construction will require excavation depths on the order of 26 feet below existing grade over the entire proposed building area. This excavation process will result in significant stress relief at the proposed mat foundation bearing level. Considering the above, we estimate total and differential settlements on the order of 1/4 inch for the proposed structure bearing on a mat foundation at a depth of about 26 feet below existing grade. Due to the cohesionless nature of the site soils, we anticipate that settlements will occur shortly after application of the structure dead loads. Ile estimate that total settlement may be on the order of 1 inch if "boils" occur. Boils (hydraulic gradient greater than r one) result in the loosening of the underlying sand, which promotes larger - magnitudes of settlement. 4.3 Allowable Settlement Typically, if structural distress in a building is not observed, it is concluded that settlement has not occurred. Actually, most buildings 21 84-21'7 . ILI settle. The allowable amount of settlement is dependent on many factors, including: the uniformity of settlement, the time rate of settlement, structural dimensions and properties of structural materials. Generally, total or uniform settlement does not da^iage a structure but does affect access drainage and utility connections. These can generally tolerate movements of up to 2 feet. Differential settlement, however, affects the building frame and is limited by the building's structural flexibility. The following permissible settlements are presented in Sowers; "Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical Engineering", 1979. These are the permissible settlements for reinforced concrete building frames. These allowable settlements are based on both theory and observations of actual structures that have suffered damage. Permissible Settlement Total Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . 2 to 4 inches Differential Settlement: Column Spacing (Ft) 10 . . . . . . . . . 0.4 inch 20 . . . . . . . . . 0.8 inch 30 . . . . . . . . . 1.2 inches 40 . . . . . . . . . 1.6 inches The permissible differential settlements indicated above are based on a limiting angular distortion between columns of approximately 1/300 (settlement/span length). It should be noted, however, that although 22 • 84-21'7 settle. The allowable amount of settlement is dependent on many factors, including: the uniformity of settlement, the time rate of settlement, structural dimensions and properties of structural materials. Generally, total or uniform settlement does not damage a structure but does affect access drainage and utility connections. These can generally tolerate movements of up to 2 feet. Differential settlement, however, affects the building frame and is limited by the buildinq's structural flexibility. The following permissible settlements are presented in Sowers; "Introductory Soil Mechanics and Foundations: Geotechnical Engineering", 1979. These are the permissible settlements for reinforced concrete building frames. These allowable settlements are based on both theory and observations of actual structures that have suffered damage. Permissible Settlement Total Settlement . . . . . . . . . . . 2 to 4 inches Differential Settlement: Column Spacing (Ft) 10 . . . . . . . . . 0.8 inch 20 0.8 inch 30 . . . . . . . . . 1.2 inches 40 . . . . . . . 1.6 inches MrM The permissible differential settlements indicated above are based on a limiting angular distortion between columns of approximately 1/300 (settlement/span length). It should be noted, however, that although 22 84F-2V ; reinforced concrete building frames may tolerate these magnitudes of settlement, cracking of panel walls and concrete slabs, as well as damage to large glass windows and difficulties with the operation of sliding doors or windows may result. The maximum angular distortion between columns may need to be limited to approximately 1/500 in order to avoid these problems. 4.4 Groundwater Fluctuations The primary source of potable groundwater in Dade County is the Biscayne Aquifer. The Biscayne Aquifer is a very permeable, unconfined hydrologic unit of water bearing rocks ranging in age from latter Miocene to Pleistocene. The Biscayne Aquifer reaches its maximum thickness of about 200 feet along the Atlantic Coastal Ridge and wedges out in the western portions of the county. The Biscayne Aquifer is one of the most productive aquifer ..systems in the nation. The high permeability of the formation is attributed to the solutioned nature of the limestones and sandstones which I comprise the major portion of the aquifer. The aquifer is mainly recharged by local rainfall. Discharge occurs Iprincipally by means of evapotranspiration, pumping and by flow into canals "-' and the ocean. The groundwater level in the .unconfined aquifer fluctuates with seasonal rainfall conditions. The highest groundwater levels may be encountered during summer months and periods of heavy rainfall. The average yearly highest and lowest groundwater levels in the vicinity of the project site, as measured during the period from 1900 to 23 84-217 , 4 I a 4 E I A is 1975, are +3 and 0 feet MSL. More detailed yearly rannes and averaaes are aiven on groundwater maps published by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Division. When high tides due to storm activity occur in South Florida, hydrostatic uplift forces act on structures. Groundwater fluctuation frequency is a function of storm intensity. Storm frequency, stillwater elevation, and hurricane wave height have been estimated by others usinq coastal modeling. Stillwater and wave height elevations are available from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FE11A), Flood Insurance Division located in Atlanta, Georgia. Site specific information was not obtained for this project. However, the previous studies for sites on the Atlantic Ocean in Dade and Broward Counties indicate a stillwater elevation of +B feet and wave height elevations of +11 feet for storms with a 100-year frequency. 11e consider these values of groundwater elevations, when applied as recommended in Section 5.1 of this report, to he appropriate for use on this project. Since groundwater level variations are anticipated, design drawinas and specifications should accommodate such possihilities and construction planning should be based on the assumption that variations will occur. 4.5 Excavation Stability As previously discussed, construction of a mat Foundation for support of the proposed construction will require excavation depths on the order of 24 ' 84 -21'7 lJ 00 I K 26 feet below existing grade. The feasibility of an open cut excavation system for the proposed construction was documented during our geotechnical exploration. One of the exploratory tools used during our exploration was a backhoe-excavated test pit. The test pit had approximate plan dimensions of 4 by 18 feet and was excavated to a depth of about 27 feet below existing grade. The subsurface conditions exposed in the test pit consisted of the Miami Limestone from ground surface to the test pit termination depth. The test pit remained open, with unsupported walls, for a period of 5 days. It was apparent from observations made from the ground surface, and following several free dives to the bottom of the test pit, that the excavation walls had not slouqhed during this period. The trench walls were cut vertically from the ground surface to the termination depth. We have also evaluated the stability of the mat foundation excavation adjacent to the existing 6-story structure on the north and the existing 2-story structure immediately adjacent to the west side of �-he excavation. Rased on information provided to us, as discussed in Section 2.0 of this report, the 6-story buildino is indicated to be supported on shallow spread footings bearing approximately 5 feet below the existing grade. We understand that these spread footings were designed with an averaqe bearing pressure of 6,000 psf. There has been no information available as to how the foundations and ground floor slab of the existing 2-story building are supported. 25 84--21'7 , Our evaluation considered an average shear strength for the Miami Limestone of 5 ksf. It is our opinion that the primary failure mechanism likely to affect the existing buildings is diagonal tension failure of the supporting Miami Limestone. Considerinq a rectangular failure plane within the limestone unit and a total existino buildinq weight of about 2,3p0 kips (average loading of 125 psf per level), we estimate a factor of safety of at least 2 against a shear failure for the 6-story buildinq foundations. Opening of the excavation adjacent to the exi sti no buildings will l increase shear stresses within the rock upon which the existing foundations I reportedly bear. The shear stress increase which we estimate, while safe I against shear failure, will result in strain in the rock. /The strain will ~, result in settlement of the existing foundations. From the rock properties previously described, we estimate settlements of the existina foundations under the 6-story building adjacent to the excavation will he on the order of 1/4 inch. The above evaluation assures that the existing buildings are bearinn within a limestone unit of similar strength characteristics as that observed at the project site during the geotechnical exploration. We have - also assumed that the thicknesses of the bearina limestone and underlvine = sand and limestone strata are similar to those encountered during our neotechnical exploration. Based on our past experience and our knowledne of the local area geology, we feel that these assumptions are reasonable. 26 84-21 11 A$ It 4.6 waterproofing Submerged portions of basements, such as parking structures, must be protected against groundwater infiltration by means of membranes, water stops and moisture barriers. Protection alternatives are: 1) drainane, and 2) waterproofing against Groundwater and water under hydrostatic pressure. Drainage consists of intercepting lateral or upward water flow usina a system of perimeter and under -floor drain pipes. Water stops are used in conjunction with a drainage system to prevent water flow through concrete joints. Waterproofing is necessary when the highest expected groundwater level is above the lowest finished floor elevation. Waterproofing membranes are designed to resist full hydrostatic pressures. Some decree of waterproofing can be achieved with "tight" concrete. However, the interior walls would show dampness and mildew. Permeability of the concrete alone would allow significant seepage and create lona-term deterioration of cracks or voids which might occur. Therefore, a moisture barrier dust he installed beneath the mat foundation and on exterior basement walls. i.!aterproofing systems include: 1) hot tar asphalts and felts, 2) ironite, 3) volclay panels, and 4) modified urethanes. The hot tar asphalt and felt system is similar to a built-up roof in that bitumen is mopped or sprayed between a specified numher of felt layers. This asphalt and felt systen is applied beneath the foundation 27 84-21'7% elements and on the outside of basement walls. This system is somewhat brittle, suaaesting the possibility of a leak from structural movements during construction. A dry excavation is required before membrane construction can commence. Also, this type of membrane will require a protective coating, following installation and orior to concrete placement, in order to prevent puncture. Ironite is a waterproofing system which is applied to the inside of the structure to be waterproofed. A concrete qrout with iron particles is applied to interior walls and floors. The iron particles rust, causing expansion in the applied surface, resulting in a waterproof membrane. As a result of the iron rusting, the grout surface usually discolors. Ironite is also a brittle application resulting in possible leaks from structural movement. Volclay panels are 4-foot square boards having a thickness of 3/16 inch. High swelling bentonite is uniformly distributed between two layers of biodegradable paper. These panels are placed beneath slabs and foundation elements, and are attached to the outside of basement walls. Once volclay panels are in place, they are activated (hydrated) with fresh water to cause initial swelling. The volclay system is flexible and can tolerate some foundation novement. The swellina characteristics of bentonite result in self-sealing of punctures in the membrane. When a positive hydrostatic head is anticipated, usually two lavers of volclay panels are necessary. 28 S4-Zi7. I Modified urethane is a relatively new product in the construction industry. The rubber -like material is applied in pieces and then "welded" together in the field. A dry excavation is required for installation. A urethane membrane is relatively flexible and can tolerate some structural movement. This membrane is placed underneath the building and on outside surfaces of basement walls. A protective surface must be applied to the urethane surface prior to direct concrete placement. The waterproofing systems described above must be installed on a clean, dry surface. The individual systems and suppliers offer various warranties on labor and materials. These should be carefully considered to determine who will be responsible if possible problems arise. 4.7 Construction Dewatering One of the intents of our geotechnical exploration was to collect data which would help us estimate the drainage and dewatering characteristics of the subsurface soils at the project site. A number of pumping tests and constant head drainage tests were performed during our field exploration program. Pumping and seepage test data indicated that the Miami Limestone stratum is characterized by relatively low permeability in approximately the upper 15 feet of the formation. The limestone formation was observed to be more porous from depths of about 15 to 27 feet. The increased 29 84-217- I I porosity of the limestone unit at the lower depths results in higher permeability characteristics. The results of the pumping trench tests are presented in graphical form in Figures 11 2 and 3 on the following pages. The test results indicate that the porous to very porous tones of the Miami Limestone may be dewatered using a sump pump system. It should be noted that the equipment used for the pumping trench tests consisted of one 3-inch and one 4-inch diameter trench pumps. The maximum depth of groundwater drawdown of about 7.5 feet was achieved using both a single 4-inch diameter pump (second trench test) and a combination of 3-inch and 4-inch diameter pumps (fourth trench test). This maximum drawdown is indicative of the pump(s) capacities and not of a change in the rock porosity which would make it more permeable. An underwater examination of the pit walls confirmed this conclusion. During the pumping trench tests it was noted that it became progressively more difficult to draw down the groundwater during each next test. Groundwater recovery rates were measured and it was noted that they I varied from about 0.1 foot/min. for the first pumping trench test to about 0.43 foot/min. for the fourth pumping trench test. This is indicative of the washout effect that repetitive groundwater drawdown has on the porous to very porous limestone matrix. There is also some influence of trench depth reflected in the drawdown and recovery rates. 30 PUMPING TRENCH TEST RESULTS 8.0 FOURTH TRENCH TEST 'T1 7.5 X 26.5' TRENCH DEPTH, ONE 3" AND ONE 4" C DIA. TRASH PUMP STOPPED TEST - �_ STOPPED TEST. REACHED PUMP CAPACITY 7.0 REACHED PUMP CAPACI y 3 6.5 72. 60 SECOND TRENCH TEST to 1 -4 UJ p 24' TRENCH DEPTH. ONE 4" DIAMETER TRASH PUMP 1 m LL Z 5.5 O 0 5.0 / � Q ro S. Ir 4.5 Q'r z_- _ STOPPED TEST TO GET .+ i ANOTHER 4" PUMP N c i (a: uJ W C Q 4•0 / 3" TRASH PUMP ALONE (3RD TRENCH TEST) a O / X 3.5 _ c THIRD T9ENCH TES1 O O 28.5' TRENCH DEPTH, ONE 4" cc s C) ';'0 AND ONE 3" TRASH PUMPS n O 2.5 2.0 , --- -_ FIRST TRENCH TEST p 20- TRENCH DEPTH, ONE 4" DIAMETER TRASH PUMP, A 1.5 TEST STOPPED WHEN TRENCH WAS DRIED OUT � i n C 1.0 N M W I� 0.5 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 D00 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1.500 t , ;00 1.700 1,800 1.900 2.000 (SEC.) 5 10 15 20 25 30 (NI IN.) TFCT TIRRr r _ 'curl Alma Irld bond !m R TRENCH GROUNDWATER RECOVERY CURVES 7 FOURTH TRENCH TEST 026.5' TRENCH DEPTH, AVERAGE GROUNDWATER T J RECOVERY RATE a 0.43 FOOT/MIN. A f" s - N w w LL =r 0 SECOND TRENCH TEST O 24' TRENCH DEPTH, AVERAGE GROUNDWATER C Z RECOVERY RATE = 0.23 FOOT/MIN. W O'. O 4 N cr ww i c> p FIRST TRENCH TEST A O \ \� 6 20' TRENCH DEPTH, AVERAGE GROUNDWATER RECOVERY RATE = 0.1 FOOT/MIN. C 0 c N 2 .DASFIED LINES INDICATE \ Z.�EXTRAPOLATED PORTION L �'OFCURVE 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 GROUNDWATER RECOVERY TIME (MIN.) GROUNDWATER RECOVERY CURVES (AFTER BOREHOLE PERCOLATION TEST") � 18 o �o 17 LU 16 Ic w 15 U.) 14 �b tz L11 \� Q 13 O 12 G .O cc �� 11 _U F- 10 LU 0 6 m Q 8 O G . LU = 7 U 6 d y 6 «CONSTANT HEAD TEST EXTRAPOLATED PORTION OF CURVE L NO. 1 (TIME IN MINUTES) LL CASED TO 34' DEPTH. BEARING ON THOMPSON LIMESTONE SURFACE 0.0000 1 CFS/FT/FT WELL NO.2 (TIME IN SECONDS) WELL CASED TO 41' DEPTH, PENETRATE. FT, THOMPSON LIMESTONE FORMATION SC - 0.00005 CPS/FT/FT 4 WELL NO.2 (TIME IN SECONDS) `Q\ 3 CASING REMOVED,OPCN BOREHOLE TO 23.5' DEPTH WITHIN MIAMI LIMESTONE 512 SEC. TO 1 100% RECOVER 0 (SEC.) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 (SEC.) (MIN.) 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 (MIN. Figure 3 - Borehole Constant Heao Percolation Tests, Groundwater Recovery Curves 33 84r-217- H �J I It The solution channels or pores in the rock matrix are generally filled with uncemented to partially cemented sands. In the process of drawing down the groundwater, these sands are progressively washed out of the rock matrix and pumped out of the excavation. This fact was verified by observations of the water pumped out of the trench during the various tests. Constant head borehole tests and drilling fluid losses during boring operations, indicate that the deeper Fort Thompson limestone may be significantly more permeable than the overlying Miami Limestone. One borehole seepage test performed within the Miami Limestone indicates a coefficient of permeability of about 1.5 X 10-2 cm/sec. Borehole seepage test results for the upper portions of the Fort Thompson limestone (up to a depth of 46 feet) indicate coefficients of permeability ranging from 1.8 X 10-4 to 1.6 X 10-2 cm/sec. One borehole seepage test was performed within the Fort Thompson quartz sandy limestone at a depth of about 85 feet below existing grade. The results of this test indicate a coefficient of permeability of about 0.46 cm/sec for the limestone at this depth. The borehole and trench test results are summarized in tabular form in the Appendix of this report. Borehole seepage tests were not performed within the Fort Thompson sand layer, however, based on our past experience and tests performed on Similar sandy soils at other project sites, we estimate the coefficient of 34 84-217,- permeability of this sand is about 1 X 10-2 cm/sec. We estimate a total inflow rate for the entire excavation on the order c of 14,000 gallons per minute. This inflow rate was estimated based on a groundwater drawdown depth of about 11 feet. 35 84-21'7• , 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 tlat Foundation Design We recommend that the proposed construction be supported on a reinforced concrete mat bearing within the Miami Limestone at a depth of about 26 feet below existing grade, or an elevation of about -8 feet MSL. We do not recommend that this bearing depth be exceeded, since additional excavation may entirely undercut the Miami Limestone. We anticipate that the recommended bearing depth will result, in most cases, in 1 to 2 feet of Miami Limestone remaining below bearing depth. However, there is a distinct possibility that "thin areas" will exist, thereby exposing the underlying sand. This thickness of limestone will help minimize upward flow of groundwater and will act as a filter and lessen the possibility •..that boils will occur during the construction dewatering operations. We recommend the reinforced mat foundation be designed with an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. We recommend the mat he designed with a modulus of subgrade reaction value of 10 lbs. per cubic inch. We anticipate that the mat foundation will resist uplift loads entirely through dead weight. We recommend that the magnitude of hydrostatic loading on the mat foundation be calculated based on a flood groundwater elevation of +8 feet 14SL, or a site specific stillwater flood elevation which should be obtained from F DIA. Design should provide for groundwater 36 8A-21'7 M elevations above the stillwater flood elevation by either structural capability or by relief of water pressures by basement flooding. 5.2 Geotechnical Site Preparation We recommend that the entire project site be stripped of all vegetation and debris, and that the existing 2-story wood frame building be demolished prior to initiating excavation operations. We recommend that the entire construction area then be excavated to just above the groundwater level, an anticipated depth below existing grade of about la feet or an elevation of about +4 feet MSL. We recommend the limestone sides be cut vertically. We recommend that the dewatering system then be installed and the excavation be extended to bearing depths in sections or all at one time. Groundwater control methods are recommended below. 5.3 Groundwater Control The following construction excavation dewatering recommendations are based on the data collected during our geotechnical exploration and our knowledge of geologic conditions in the general area of the project site. We recommend that a trial approach be used in the selection of a dewatering system for the proposed construction. A dewatering test area should be selected within the proposed building perimeter. The purpose of the test area will be to ascertain the feasibility of a dewatering system prior to total area excavation. 37 S4r217•• A I We recommend the following dewatering systems be considered `:r the proposed project in the order of preference listed below: • Open pumping of the groundwater.. • Open pumping in conjunction with wellpoints. • Open pumping in conjunction with wellpoints and perimeter sheet piles. Open pumping would consist of the installation of sumps along the perimeter of the excavation. We anticipate that sump pumps may be able to lower the groundwater level 11 to 12 feet below existing grade. During our field testing program, we were able to lower the groundwater level about 7-1/2 feet below existing grade using a single 4-inch diameter trash pump. Additional groundwater drawdown was not possible due to the limited capacity of the pump. Past dewatering experiences indicate that significant quantities of water enter excavations through boreholes or other penetrations of the limestone strata. In order to reduce the quantity of flow in the dewatering effort, we recommend any noticeable limestone perforations, such as the boring locations, be grouted. A sand -cement mixture should be pumped to the bottom of any open hole. Pumping should continue until grout return at the surface is observed. A grout strength of 2,000 psi should be attained before dewatering is initiated. Grouting should not be attempted while an upward water velocity is observed in the borehole. A We recommend the following dewatering systems be considered t:r the proposed project in the order of preference listed below: C Open pumping of the groundwater. c Open pumping in conjunction with wellpoints. e Open pumping in conjunction with wellpoints and perimeter sheet pit es. Open pumping would consist of the installation of sumps alona the perimeter of the excavation. We anticipate that sump pumps may be able to lower the groundwater level 11 to 12 feet below existing grade. During our field testing program, we were able to lower the groundwater level about 7-1/2 feet below existing grade using a single 4-inch diameter trash pump. Additional groundwater drawdown was not possible due to the limited capacity of the pump. Past dewatering experiences indicate that significant quantities of water enter excavations through boreholes or other penetrations of the limestone strata. In order to reduce the quantity of flow in the dewatering effort, we recommend any noticeable limestone perforations, such as the boring locations, be grouted. A sand -cement mixture should be pumped to the bottom of any open hole. Pumping should continue until grout return at the surface is observed. A grout strength of 2,000 psi should be attained before dewatering is initiated. Grouting should not be attempted while an upward water velocity is observed in the borehole. M. 84--217 9150550 A, We recommend that an underdrain water collection system, consisting of pipe embedded in washed filter stone, be used in conjunction with the sump pump system. We recommend a 12-inch thickness for the washed -stone layer. We recommend the stone be placed in two equal lifts. Following placement of the initial 6-inch lift of washed stone, a groundwater collection system should be installed. This groundwater collection system should consist of perforated 3 to 5-inch diameter pipe traversing the construction area. We recommend that the perforated pipe network be installed initially on a 20-foot spacing. This collection system will carry groundwater collected throughout the construction area to perimeter sumps. If the initial pattern of 20-foot pipe spacing does not maintain the water level below the surface of the stone layer, more closely -placed pipes would be required. We recommend that washed stone be placed over the perforated pipe collection system until a total depth of stone of 1 foot is achieved. A nominal compaction effort should be applied i to the stone layer to tighten the stone and reduce its settlement potential. Compaction should consist of 2 to 4 coverages of the stone layer with a vibratory drum -type roller having a static weight not exceeding about one ton. This washed -stone underdrain will serve to: 1) act as a filter and prevent erosion of the sands beneath the excavation bottom, 2) help collect and dispose of groundwater and 3) provide a more uniform working surface. • 39 i I The actual number, size and placement of sumps will be decided during the dewatering testing program. We anticipate that modifications during construction may be required as a result of variations in subsurface conditions. Piping or "sand boiling" occurs when an unbalanced hydrostatic head causes upward seepage pressures which equal or exceed the buoyant weight of the soil at the bottom of the excavation. This results in the sand "boiling" in the bottom of the excavation and losing its shear strength. The relative density of the sand would be significantly reduced if excessive gradients are allowed to exist during the dewaterinq. If boiling is indicated at any location, wellpoints should be installed. We anticipate that a perimeter wellpoint system extending to a depth of about 35 feet below existing grade (bottom of sand layer) would be the 8ppropriate initial installation. 1+'ellpoints at the interior of the excavation would be required if the perimeter sumps and wellpoints do not provide the required pressure relief at the excavation interior. The wellpoints should be installed by jetting and/or drilling. We recommend that a coarse sand or gravel filter be placed around each wellpoint to prevent loss of fine sand particles during pumping. Each wellpoint should be provided with a valved swing joint connection to the header. The valve permits regulation of the amount of water entering the header pipe from each individual wellpoint so that uniform 40 11 84-21'7.. flow can be maintained during pumping. The swing joint connection permits the location of the wellpoint to be varied slightly from the connector spacing on the header pipe. Notwithstanding our recommended wellpoint installation depth above, the actual location, number, size, spacing and length of wellpoints will be determined during the dewatering testing program. We anticipate that modifications may be required during construction as a result of variations in the subsurface conditions. In summary, the dewatering system necessary on this project will depend on the soil conditions discovered at the time of construction excavation. The more dollars invested in a dewatering system, the higher probability of success. We recommend the least expensive dewatering system be utilized at the onset; open pumping. Open pumping should be attempted in an area covering 6 about 25000 of the total excavation as a trial area. As the excavation progresses, additional pumps will be required. If the excavation process encounters areas where the limestone is thin and underlying sand is Iexposed, a wellpoint system for the remainder of the excavation will be necessary. A i � y W,.11po�nts will be necessary if boils develop. If the combination of wellpoints and open pumping does not lower the groundwater to the desired elevation, then groundwater flows must be restricted by perimeter sheet piling. If sheeting is required, we estimate 41 84-21'7•. A sheets would have to extend to depths of 40 to 45 feet below existing ground surface to provide meaningful seepage quantity reduction. We feel the need for sheeting is a remote possibility, however. Construction dewatering on a recent project on Biscayne Bay at N.E. 18th Street was successful in lowering the groundwater 10 feet at the center of a 90-foot square excavation using perimeter wellpoints. These wellpoints were installed to a depth of 20 feet below groundwater level (reference to telephone conversation with Mr. Owen Osterman, Foundation Wellpoint Conpany, telephone number 1-461-0500). Construction dewatering should be in continuous operation, so as to prevent water pressure from developing at the base of the mat, until the mat and structure are capable of resisting hydrostatic pressure that results from the natural groundwater level at the time of construction, • plus an appropriate safety factor suggested by the structural engineer. The natural groundwater level at the time of construction should be determined by measurements in an observation well that is located so as not to be influenced by the construction dewatering. 5.4 Groundwater Disposal The following groundwater discharge recommendations are based on data collected during our geotechnical exploration, our past experience and knowledge, and telephone conversations with well contractors in Dade ►, County. 42 84•-217-.1 Several of the existing multi -level structures in the vicinity of the project site are currently using discharge wells to dispose of stormwater within their properties. Stormwater discharge wells in the Miami area are generally constructed by cable -tool methods. Steel casing is driven to the targeted cemented zone, and the well cleaned by a bailer, leaving an open hole 10 to 20 feet below the bottom of the casing. No screen is used and the wells are developed by over pumping, or compressed air surging and backwashing to remove cuttings and sand. This method of well construction requires that the uncased portion of the hole be in competent rock free of caving sand layers. It is our opinion that a zone within the Fort Thompson Formation at depths of about 85 to 90 feet below existing grade may be used for discharge of stormwater. We recommend that a 24-inch diameter well ---capacity of 2,500 gpm per well be used for design. This potential discharge zone is within the Biscayne Aquifer, and the Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM) requires that discharge into this aquifer be restricted to zones where the chloride content is in excess of 1,500 mg/1. DERt1 should be contacted about their permitting requirements for this project. During our geotechnical exploration, groundwater was pumped from a depth of 85 feet and a water sample collected for chloride content determination by an independent laboratory. The results of the laboratory 43 84-217, E U testing indicated a chloride content at this depth in excess of 17,000 mg/l. A copy of the test results will be provided to you shortly after the submission of this report. 5.5 Waterproofing Recommendations We recommend a waterproofing system be used in conjunction with the subject construction. Considering the advantages and disadvantages of the four waterproofing systems discussed, a volclay panel system appears to be the best choice. We recommend the volclay panel waterproofing system be installed beneath the mat foundation and on the exterior walls to an elevation of +8 feet FLSL. The volclay panels constitute a flexible system with the ability to re -seal itself if punctured. Volclay panels have been used on the following Florida projects: 1) EPCOT project, Orlando; 2) U.S. Federal Building and Courthouse, Ft. Lauderdale; and 3) Miami International Airport. A water sample must be supplied to the volclay panel distributor prior to completion of waterproofing design. The supplier should also be contacted for estimates of seepage rates, under the anticipated pressures, through their products. - When free -draining fill material is placed adjacent to basement walls, drains at the mat foundation level will be required to provide drainage of trapped water. Drain pipes should be 6 inches in diameter and wrapped in filter cloth to prevent fine sediment infiltration. Free -draining qranular 44 84-21'7=- material (DOT Gradation No. 9) should be placed adjacent to basement walls. Granular material should be placed at least 15 feet above the foundation and extending 1 foot from the wall. As an alternative to the drainage system outlined above, we recommend the space between basement walls and in -situ limestone be filled with lean concrete. We recommend that surface water be diverted from building walls by grading away from the walls and by carrying the runoff from roofs away from the building. We recommend a ground slope of at least 1/4 inch per foot for at least 10 feet from the building walls. An impervious layer of soil at the surface will further aid in carrying runoff away from the building r. wal 1 s . 5.6 Construction Monitoring We recommend that a pre -construction, engineering crack survey, including photographs, be performed on all buildings adjacent to the project site. Specifically, we recommend that the adjacent two-story structure to the west and the six -story structure just north of the project - site be surveyed. The purpose of this survey will be to document the location of any cracks in the structures that exist prior to initiating the subject construction. During the survey, the occupants of the structures should be informed of the condition of the structures, crack; locations should be noted and 45 84-21'7" 0 pnotopraphs of typical cracks should be made. Permanent reference points should be established on the exterior of the structures. Elevations of these reference points should he determined periodicall,v to docunent any movement. Positive information is not available on as -built characteristics of foundations supporting the existinq 2-story building and the 6-story building, particularly the block walls, floor slabs and the stairwell for the latter structure. Excavation, particularly adjacent to the 2-story building and the 6-story building's stairwell, should include a determination of whether the block walls and floor slabs are founded on competent rock. If these elevents are not supported on competent rock, then additional support, such as eroutinq of the bearinq soils, bracing, or underpinning, would be required. 5.7 Cost Estimates This section of the report discusses cost information for the dewaterina and waterproofing portions of the Grove Square proiect. It should be understood that these costs were obtained verbally and should be used for budgetinq ourposes only. Each contact listed should he contacted for a thorough description of work and a firm cost. The followinq paragraphs discuss specific dewatering case histories and costs, specific cost info oration from telephone conversations, and our best estimate of costs for budget purposes only. A telephone conversation with Mr. Gordon Sutherland (Frank J. Rooney, Inc., 374-6360) indicated construction dewaterinq experiences in the 46 downtown Miami area. An excavation with a plan area of about 3,600 square feet was dewatered to about elevation -10 feet. The excavation was dewatered using open pumping via 3 pumps. Three different diameters were used: 12-inch, 8-inch, and 10-inch. A calculated maximum discharge of about 5,000 gal./min. was anticipated; however, Mr. Sutherland indicated he did not believe this capacity was achieved in the field. Dewaterina discharge was disposed of via a discharge well and to the City Sewer system. A rough ballpark estimate for 3 months of full-time pumping was about S160,000. Another example of dewatering was obtained from fir. Randy Flick (M.P.. Harrison Construction Company, 858-7721). In this dewatering example, a project along Brickell Avenue was dewatered over an area of about 20,000 square feet. The groundwater was lowered to an elevation of about -5 feet. the mat area was dewatered using open pumping. About six 6-inch diameter pumps and two 8-inch diameter pumps were necessary to achieve this level of water removal. Backup systems were also used. An approximate cost for about 3 to 4 months of dewatering with this system was about S150,000. Dewatering discharge was pumped through a sedimentation tank and then to Biscayne Bay, with final filtering occurring via a turbidity curtain. A third example of dewatering was obtained from fir. Dell Dunn (Turner Construction, 374-6267). In this dewatering example, wellpoints were used at a site on Biscayne Bay at about N.E. 18th Street. Twenty -foot long 47 ... .._ � ,..ate... _. ,. �tsta+r•Y_:�L�,-ai.� Tt'_ •. +Sv; ,_,�;""dac .. _ _ _ *e. q 4 0 wellpoints were spaced along the perimeter of a 90-foot square excavation. This system was capable of lowering the groundwater about 9 feet in the center of the excavation. Discharge water was pumped through a 20,000-gallon sedimentation tank before being discharged to Biscayne Bay. A turbidity curtain was used as a final filtering step. Several government permits were required to discharge into Biscayne Bay. Three 10-inch diameter pumps were utilized in this wellpoint system. The calculated discharge from the entire system was about 20,000 gal./min. The dewatering system was utilized for an approximate 6-month period with intense pumping during a 4-month period. A ballpark cost for the entire dewatering system, which was run on a 24-hour basis, was about $200,000. The next portions of this section will relate specific telephone information and cost data. Information about a wellpoint system and costs was obtained from Mr. Owen Osterman., with Foundation Wellpoint Company of Ft. Pierce, Florida (telephone 305/461-0500). Mr. Osterman indicated he could furnish four 10-inch diameter wellpoint pumps, 800 feet of 10-inch diameter suction pipe, 320 wellpoints, 500 feet of 10-inch diameter discharge, and four 10-inch diameter gate valves for a cost of about S36,000 for a period of 3 months. He also indicated he could furnish one 6-inch diameter jet pump, 300 feet of jet Dose, and 20 feet of 4-inch diameter suction hose for the, jetting operation at a cost of about 51,800 per nonth. This jetting 48 11-1 f V equipment would be used to install the wellpoints. He estimated each wellpoint pump would consume about 50 gallons of diesel fuel per 24 hours. Mr. Osterman recommended that Ortona sand be used as a filter material around each wellpoint (telephone 813/676-9431). About 3/4 cu. yd. of sand is needed for each wellpoint. A crane and front-end loader are required for wellpoint installation. A productivity estimate of 3 points installed per hour was provided. Cost information for open pumping was supplied by Mr. Roger Freeman of Irrigator Pump (1/792-5800). Mr. Freeman indicated that three 12-inch diameter working pumps, one 12-inch diameter standby pump, and 50 feet of discharge hose for each pump could be rented for a cost of about S33,000 for 3 months. Mr. Freeman indicated the 3 pumps would have a discharge capacity of about 13,000 gal./min. A grit chamber with baffles would be required for each pump and would cost $6,000 for a 3-month period. Pump service was available at a cost of about S100 per month per pump. We were informed that each pump had a fuel consumption rate of about 80 gallons per day. Mr. Freeman also indicated he could supply 70 wellpoints, 200 feet of header pipe for each pump system, and 2 punps. The wellpoints would be 20 feet long, with a total cost of about S23,000 for a 3-month period. Mr. Len Markowitz of Morse/Diesel suggested using one operating engineer to manage all pumps on -site, at a cost of about S21 per hour. For budgeting purposes, Law Engineering suggests a figure of about 510,000 for labor and equipment rental associated with wellpoint 49 84_2 7 I Sr 11 11 w w A installation. This figure does not include the cost of any filtering material or filter sand. Information about sheet pile installation was obtained from Mr. Bill Mu scY lewhite of cbsar Foundation Company (telephone 325-0530). Mr. Musclewhite provided us with costs for 790 lineal feet of perimeter excavation. He assumed that no bracing for the sheeting would be required. The costs provided include materials, labor and 3 months rental for the temporary sheet installation. We were provided with costs of s/.ou per square foot for 30-foot long temporary sheets, $7.70 per square foot for 50-foot long temporary sheets, and $12.50 for 30-foot long permanent sheet piling. Information about the cost of volclay panels was obtained from Mr. Lyn Dickinson with Coastal Construction Products of 1liami (telephone 594-2121). Mr. Dickinson indicated that the cost of 2 thicknesses of 3/16-inch thick panels would be S1.16 per square foot. This cost is for materials only. The cost of installing the volclay panels can be obtained from General Caulking, Mr. John Ballaro (telephone 652-1020). For the sake of estimating in this report, we have utilized a number of S3.00 per square foot for the materials and labor costs of a volclay system. Based on information disclosed at an earlier project meeting, we have utilized a number of $15,000 for each discharge well installed on this project. 6141 84-217! - �F We recommend that 3 discharge wells be installed initially. Next, about 25b of the site should be excavated and a large-scale dewatering test performed. Based on the results of this test dewatering, the final number of discharge a wells should be selected. Presented below is our estimate of dewatering and waterproofing costs for this project. A. Permanent/Temporary Discharge Wells 1. Six 100-foot deep wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 90,000.00 B. Open Pumping 1. Three operating pumps, one standby pump, 3-month duration . . . . . . S 33,000.00 2. Grit chamber rental for 3 months S 6,000.00 3. Pump service for 3 months. . . . . . . . . . . . S 2,000.00 4. Fuel at $1.20 per gallon for 3 months. . . . . . S 27,000.00 5. Operating engineer for 3 months. . . . . . . . . S 45,000.00 SUBTOTAL . . . . S 113,000.00 C. Wellpoint Installation 1. Four 10-inch diameter pumps for 3 months . . . . S 36,000.00 2. Install 320 wellpoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 10,000.00 3. Fuel costs at $1.20 per gallon . . . . . . . . . S 22,000.00 4. Operating engineer for 3 months. . . . . . . . . S 45,000,.00 SUBTOTAL S 113,000.00 _ D. Sheet Pile Installation _ 1. 30-foot temporary sheet piles. . . . . . . . . . S 180,000.00 2. 50-foot temporary sheet piles. . . . . . . . . . S 304,000.00 3. 30-foot permanent sheet piles. . . . . . . . . . S 296,000.00 51 • Y'.�I,Mi•.� AS _ .may. .T ".— R ..,� �e...i• . y�. `. I E. Volclay Panel Installation 1. 39,000 square feet of application S3.00 Iq Ll 114 11 11 J a per square foot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S 117,000.00 If favorable dewatering soil conditions are encountered, we estimate that possibly 3 discharge wells will be required, along with open—Qu`ping and the volclay installation, for a low budget estimate of S275,000. There is a strong possibility that open pumping alone will not dewater the site and that open pumping will need to be supplemented by a wellpoint system. We estimate that this will increase dewatering and waterproofing costs to $388,000. There is a slight possibility that sheet piling will be necessary in addition to the previous systems. A high -side budget figure of $737,000 for dewatering and waterproofing costs would include sheeting and 6 discharge wells. 5.8 Basis for Recommendations Our evaluations and recommendations are based on our understanding of the project information provided to us as presented in this report, and the data collected during the subsurface explorations. We have made recommendations based on our experience with similar subsurface conditions under similar loading conditions. Our recommendations apply to the specific project conditions discussed in this report; therefore, any changes in building loads, location, or grades should be provided to us so we may modify our conclusions and recommendations, if necessary. 52 84-21'7- I E. Volclay Panel Installation 1. 39,000 square feet of application 0 S3.00 per square foot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 117,000.00 --� If favorable dewatering soil conditions are encountered, we estimate that possibly 3 discharge wells will be required, along with open —pulping and the volclay installation, for a low budget estivate of-5275,000. There is a strong possibility that open pumping alone will not dewater the site and that open pumping will need to be supplemented by a wellpoint system. We estimate that this will increase dewatering and waterproofing costs to $388,000. There is a slight possibility that sheet piling will be necessary in addition to the previous systems. A high -side budget figure of $737,000 for dewatering and waterproofing costs would include sheeting and 6 discharge wells. 5.8 Basis for Recommendations Our evaluations and recommendations are based on our understanding of the project information provided to us as presented in this report, and the data collected during the subsurface explorations. We have made recommendations based on our experience with similar subsurface conditions under similar loading conditions. Our recommendations apply to the specific project conditions discussed in this report; therefore, any changes in building loads, location, or grades should be provided to us so we may modify our conclusions and recommendations, if necessary. 1 52 Major subsurface discontinuities or soil property changes that can affect construction and long-term foundation performance may occur within very short lateral distances. It is unlikely that the dispersed sampling used in our explorations will identify all variant conditions. Also, the actual prevailing or average conditions at the site may not be the same as the average conditions represented by the borings due to bias in the boring locations. Appropriate field engineering observations during construction will provide the best basis for identifying variant conditions and for initiating proper remedial action. We recommend that Law Engineering be retained for a general review of final foundation design drawings and specifications to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented in these documents. If Law Engineering is not accorded the privilege of making this review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. We would appreciate the opportunity of remaining involved in the design and construction of your project. 53 84-217, ��'�Sw�1_� �_%r,314.�i••. :l.li .';e. �lY�Ys+'�laT.1!!^.a'�'1 Y!� �f '''�1'F��;•:: e r u. :-*�:�,,*ems.. _.. APPENDIX A 9 I 84-21'7� �w Major subsurface discontinuities or soil property changes that can affect construction and long-term foundation performance may occur within very short lateral distances. It is unlikely that the dispersed sampling used in our explorations will identify all variant conditions. Also, the actual prevailing or average conditions at the site may not be the same as the average conditions represented by the borings due to bias in the boring locations. Appropriate field engineering observations during construction will provide the best basis for identifying variant conditions and for initiating proper remedial action. We recommend that Law Engineering be retained for a general review of final foundation design drawings and specifications to verify that earthwork and foundation recommendations are properly interpreted and implemented in these documents. If Law Engineering is not accorded the privilege of making this review, we can assume no responsibility for misinterpretation of our recommendations. We would appreciate the opportunity of remaining involved in the design and construction of your project. 53 r K, APPENDIX 84-21`7- y W Z D W > 1 J < TAMI ANTI J7 TRAIL S.W !TH STREET BIRO RD. CORAL WAY 2 F w N f N N > > < IE > C i N Olx Z i I i 0 N ; SOUS~ N BIRO RD.' ,fir i 1 P P6 f,�O SHIPPING AVE. ' `G t ti IAV AVE. I { 0' K AVE RIDA AVE..-- 0 GRAND AVE. v j {• Z F N Z � JE' n '• „ 4•11 N �E G V `' �P' 0P� Jam. v a�' P el t, SITE LOCATION POINCIANA AVE. �J �I•iy W Wi I BISCAYNE b BAY P� SUNSET DR. O •� Or P iP INTERDEVCO 1 • GROVESOUARE MIAMI, FLORIDA I "d 0 !.a SCALE IN MILES 84-217-,*. SITE LOCATION PLAN LAEMP W ENGINEERING TSnNG COMPANY DRAWING NO. 1 O.a.r+..cr o+iws•nrA•L m.u,cwnn�. r� �nw.A••.. DRAWN JOB NO. ►4wi I".OAID. CHECKED A•1 APPROVED ML•2681 m LEGEND SOIL TEST BORING 4b WELL BORING VENCH TEST EXISTING 6-STORY BUILDING __rzi (TO REMAIN) APP14OVED � r • 31 Ul EXISTING 2 - STORY BUILDING (TO REMAIN) y ALLEY I-- PROPERTY BOUNDARIES NOTES: 1) TEST LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE ONLY APPROXIMATE. 2) PLAN DRAWN TO APPROXIMATE SCALE SHOWN. 3) SOIL TEST BORINGS SHOWN ARE PERFORMED DURING PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION ON JANUARY OF 1982. LETCO JOB NO. ML-2605. 4) REFERENCE DRAWING SHOULD BE REVIEWED FOR ADDITIONAL SITE PLAN INFORMATION. REFERENCE DRAWING: SITE SURVEY, GROVE SQUARE PROPERTY, PREPARED BY MANUEL G. VERA & ASSOCIATES INC., ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS, PLANNERS MIAMI FLORIDA. JOB NO. 81.05-170. NOV. 5, 1981. B-3 B-1 LOCAT 1 30' DUE N ZONED ri'' _ FLOP INTERDEVCO GROVE SQUARE PROJE COCONUT GROVE, FLi 1 FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES The field exploration for the Grove Square project consisted of four pumping trench tests at depths ranging from 20 to 26.5 feet below existing grade, 3 borehole percolation tests at depths ranging from 23 to 85 feet and 5 test borings ranging in depth from about 58 to 60 feet. A combination of standard penetration testing, rotary wash drilling and rock coring methods were utilized to advance the borings. The boring locations were suggested by Law Engineering. The actual boring locations were staked in the field by 14 Law Engineering personnel using a cloth tape to measure from existing landmarks. Soil and rock samples recovered were examined by a aeotechnical engineer. The engineer classified the soils in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM Specification D-2487 (Unified Classification System). The Test Boring Records included in this Appendix represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs based on engineering examination and laboratory testing performed on field -acquired samples. These records depict subsurface conditions at the specific boring locations and at the particular time drilled. Soil conditions at other site locations may differ from conditions occurring at these boring locations. The lines designating the interface between soil and rock strata on the boring records and profile represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. The borings were advanced by a rotary drilling process utilizing a bentonitic drilling fluid which was circulated in the borehole to help stabilize the sides and flush the cuttings. At various depths, the drilling A A-4 84-21'71:. It 4 C A FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES The field exploration for the Grove Square project consisted of four pumping trench tests at depths ranging from 20 to 26.5 feet below existing grade, 3 borehole percolation tests at depths ranging from 23 to 85 feet and 5 test borings ranging in depth from about 58 to 60 feet. A combination of standard penetration testing, rotary wash drilling and rock coring methods were utilized to advance the borings. The boring locations were suggested by Law Engineering. The actual boring locations were staked in the field by Law Engineering personnel using a cloth tape to measure from existing landmarks. Soil and rock samples recovered were examined by a geotechnical engineer. The engineer classified the soils in general accordance with the procedures outlined in ASTM Specification D-2487 (Unified Classification System). The Test Boring Records included in this Appendix represent our interpretation of the contents of the field logs based on engineering examination and laboratory testing performed on field -acquired samples. These records depict subsurface conditions at the specific boring locations and at the particular time drilled. Soil conditions at other site locations may differ from conditions occurring at these boring locations. The lines designating the interface between soil and rock strata on the boring records and profile represent approximate boundaries. The transition between materials may be gradual. The borings were advanced by a rotary drilling process utilizing a bentonitic drilling fluid which was circulated in the borehole to help stabilize the sides and flush the cuttings. At various depths, the drilling A-4 84-21'74. 0 tools were removed and soil and/or rock samples obtained using either standard penetration test or rock coring techniques. The data collection methods are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs. Standard Penetration Test - The standard penetration tests were made in general accordance with ASTM Designation D-1586-67 "Penetration Test and Split -Barrel Sampling of Soils". Soil and rock samples were obtained with a standard 1.4-inch I.D., 2.0-inch O.D., split -tube sampler. The sampler was first seated six inches to penetrate any loose cuttings, and then driven an additional foot with blows of a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is designated the "penetration resistance". The penetration resistance, when properly interpreted, is an index of the soil density and strength. Representative portions of the soil and rock samples obtained were placed in glass jars and transported to our laboratory. Descriptions of the soil samples and the penetration resistances are shown on the Test Boring Records. Rock Coring - Rock core drilling procedures were carried out in general accordance with ASTM Specification D-2113-70. The cemented materials were cored with a diamond -studded bit fastened to the end of a hollow, double -tube core barrel. This device was rotated at approximately 50 to 200 rpm and was generally capable of cutting the rock without fracturing it. Rock core samples of the materials penetrated were protected and retained in a swivel -mounted split inner tube. Upon completion of a 5-foot core run, the core barrel was brought to the surface, the rock sample removed, and placed in a core box. GNi 84-21'70.. The core boxes were taken to our laboratory where the rock cores were examined and described by a geotechnical engineer. The percent recovery and rock quality designation (RQD) were then determined. The percent recovery is the ratio of the sample length obtained to the depth drilled, expressed as a percent. The RQD is the percentage of the length of core recovered which has intact segments four or more inches long compared to the total lenoth of the run. The percent recovery and RQD are related to rock soundness and continuity. The RQD value applies only to moderately hard or harder rock cored with either an NX, NQ, or larger bit size. Generalized rock descriptions, percent recovery, RQD values, and the bit size used are shown on the appropriate Test Boring Records. The 4-inch and NX sizes designate bits which obtain samples 3-7/8 inches and 2-1/8 inches in diameter, respectively. Borehole Percolation Test - The borehole percolation test procedures initially consisted of advancing a 3-inch diameter boring to the test depth. A 3-inch-I.D., steel casing was then installed into the limestone layer. Except for one test conducted in a 23.5-foot deep uncased borehole, the casing extended to within 0.5 to 8.5 feet of the borehole bottom. Borehole test depths ranged from 23 to 85 feet below existing grade. A hydraulic head was then raised in the casing above the static groundwater level. This head was maintained at a nearly constant inflow rate for 10 minutes. Hydraulic heads ranging from 1 to 18 feet were utilized for the tests at the subject site. A-6 84-2M. Test results were analyzed by a method described by Lambe and Whitman (Soil Mechanics, 1969) to determine coefficient of permeability (K). The reduction of test data was based on the assumption that the vertical coefficient of permeability is equal to the horizontal coefficient of permeability. LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES Soil Classification - Soil classifications provide a general guide to the engineering properties of various soil types and enable the engineer to apply his past experience to current projects. Soils are classified according to relative density (based on number of blows from standard penetration test), color, mineralogy and texture. These classification descriptions are included on the appended Test Boring Records. The classification system discussed above is primarily qualitative. For the purpose of detailed soil classification, grain size distribution tests were perfonned. Using these test results, the soil can be classified according to the Unified Classification System (ASTt-1 0-2487). The in -place physical soil properties provide an index for estimating the soil's behavior. The soil classification and physical properties obtained are presented in this report. Grain Size Distribution - Grain Size Distribution tests are performed to determine the soil classification and the particle size distribution. Soil samples are prepared for testing according to ASTM D-2217 (wet preparation). The grain size distribution of soil coarser than a number 200 sieve (0.074 mm opening) is dete mined by passing the samples through a standard set of nested sieves. These tests are conducted in accordance with AST.; D-422. M 84-21'7 TRENCH TEST RESULTS If GROVESQUARE COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA LETCO JOB NO. ML-2681 TRENCH TEST NO. 1 PUMPING RECOVERY TIME DRAWDOWN DEPTH BELOW TIME RECOVERY DEPTH BELOW INTERVAL INTERVAL REFERENCE POINT* INTERVAL INTERVAL REFERENCE POINT • (SEC.i (FEET) (FEET) (SEC.) (FEET) (FEET) 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 240 2.4 2.4 780 1.6 3.0 60 0.6 3.0 720 1.0 2.0 120 1.0 4.0 60 0.2 4.2 60 0.4 4.6 i GROUNDWATER LEVEL 14.8' BELOW GRADE. TRENCH DEPTH @ 20' - 4" � TRASH PUMP EXISTING GRADE 14.8' 20' GROUNDWATER LEVEL BEFORE TEST DRAW GROUNDWATER LEVEL DOWN 4.6' AFTER TEST DEPTH TRENCH TERMINATED 9• 20' A-9 84-21'7 TRENCH TEST RESULTS If GROVESQUARE COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA LETCO JOB NO. ML•2681 TRENCH TEST NO. 1 PUMPING RECOVERY TIME DRAWDOWN DEPTH BELOW TIME RECOVERY DEPTH BELOW INTERVAL INTERVAL REFERENCE POINT• INTERVAL INTERVAL REFERENCE POINT • (SEC.i (FEET) (FEET) (SEC.) (FEET) (FEET) 0 0 0 0 0 4.6 240 2.4 2.4 780 1.6 3.0 60 0.6 3.0 720 1.0 2.0 120 1.0 4.0 60 0.2 4.2 60 0.4 4.6 i GROUNDWATER LEVEL 14.8' BELOW GRADE. TRENCH DEPTH @ 20' - 4" � TRASH PUMP EXISTING GRADE 14.8' 20' GROUNDWATER LEVEL BEFORE TEST DRAW GROUNDWATER LEVEL DOWN 4.6' AFTER TEST �` DEPTH TRENCH TERMINATED @ 20' A-9 84-217 TRENCH TEST NO. 2 PUMPING RECOVERY TIME DRAWDOWN DEPTH BELOW TIME RECOVERY DEPTH BELOW INTERVAL INTERVAL REFERENCE POINT INTERVAL INTERVAL REFERENCE POINT (SEC.) (FEET) (FEET) (SEC.) (SEC.) (FEET)* F-o 0 0 0 0 6.5 25 .5 .5 240 1.0 5.5 49 .5 .1 300 1.0 4.5 56 .5 1 300 1.0 3.5 54 .5 2.0 360 1.0 2.5 57 .5 2.5 61 .5 3.0 67 .5 3.5 73 .5 4.0 67 .5 4.5 - 94 .5 5.0 114 .5 5.5 .131 .5 6.0 222 .5 6.5 323 .5 7.0 426 .5 7.5 GROUNDWATER LEVEL 14.7' BELOW EXISTING GRADE. -TRENCH DEPTH @ 24'. - 4" TRASH PUMP. XISTING GRADE 14.7' GROUNDWATER LEVEL BEFORE TEST DRAWDOWN 7.5' DEPTH GROUNDWATER LEVEL AFTER TEST TRENCH TERMINATED @ 24' A-10 �gr_21 i ri 0 TRENCH TEST NO. 3 PUMPING TIME DRAWDOWN DEPTH BELOW INTERVAL (SEC I INTERVAL (FEET) REFERENCE POINT IFFFTI 0 0 0 28 0.5 0.5 38 0.5 1.0 35 0.5 1.5 42 0.5 2.0 48 0.5 2.5 49 0.5 3.0 54 0.5 3.5 182 0.5 4.0 281 0.5 4.5 GROUNDWATER LEVEL 14.75' BELOW EXISTING GRADE -TRENCH DEPTH @ 26.5' TO 27' -4" � AND A 3" 0 TRASH PUMP NOTE : 4" 0 PUMP WAS NOT FUNCTIO14ING PROPERLY • PUMP REPLACED GROUNDWATER LEVEL BEFORE TESTING - GROUNDWATER LEVEL AFTER TESTING ISTING GRADE DRAW DOWN DEPTH TRENCH TERMINATED @ 26.5' 14.75' 4.5' A•11 84--217 J TRENCH TEST NO. 4 PUMPING RECOVERY TIME DRAWDOWN DEPTH BELOW TIME RECOVERY DEPTH BELOW INTERVAL INTERVAL REFERENCE POINT INTERVAL INTERVAL REFERENCE POINT (SEC.) (FEET) (FEET) (SEC.) (FEET) (FEET) 0 0 0 0 0 7.5 28 0.5 0.5 240 2.5 5 27 0.5 1.0 90 1.0 4 34 0.5 1.5 150 1.0 2 33 0.5 2.0 210 1.0 3 36 0.5 2.5 390 1.0 1 33 0.5 3.0 35 0.5 IS 46 0.5 4.0 36 0.5 4.5 - 49 0.5 5.0 - 46 0.5 5.5 - 55 0.5 6.0 62 0.5 6.6 - - 76 0.5 7.0 - 125 0.5 7.5 GROUNDWATER LEVEL 15.7' BELOW EXISTING GRADE. - TRENCH DEPTH @ 26.5'. - 4" Q AND 3" m TRASH PUMP. I --EXISTING GRADE ; GROUNDWATER LEVEL BEFORE TEST DRAWDOWN GROUNDWATER LEVEL DEPTH AFTER TEST _ TRENCH TERMINATED @26.5' 15.7' 7.5' A•12 84-21 i Et W'el 1 No . 1 -Test No. 34 WelI No. 2 Test No. GROUNDWATER RECOVERY RESULTS GROVE SQUARE COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA LETCO JOB 140. ML-2681 Depth Below I *Reference Point i (Ft) I 0-1 1-2 2-3 Depth Below *Reference Point (Ft) 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 8-9 9 - 10 10 - 11 11 - 12 12 - 13 13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 16 - 17 17 - IS Time Interval (M n) 24 30 34 I i Time Interval I (Sec) I I 15 I 8 I 8 I 10 I 12 I 13 I 13 I 10 I 13 14 16 16 I 18 23 I 25 32 I 59 Depth Below I *Reference Point I Time Interval (Ft) I (Sec) I Wel l No - 2 0- 1 I 12 jest tNo.7 1-2 I 8 2-3 I o 3-4 I 11 4- 5 I in 5 - 6 ( 10 'Reference point - top of casing. A-13 84-21 E7 Wei I No - 1 lest :o. Well No. 2 lest No. Well NO. 2 lest .o. GROUNDWATER RECOVERY RESULTS GROVE SQUARE COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA LETCO JOB NO. ML-2681 Depth Below *Reference Point I (Ft) 0-1 1-2 2-3 Depth Below I *Reference Point I (Ft) I 0-i 1-2 I 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 I 6-7 I 7-8 I 8-9 9-10 I 10 - 11 I 11 - 12 I 12 - 13 13 - 14 14 - 15 15 - 16 I 16 - 17 I 17 - 18 I Time Interval (Iiin) 24 30 34 Time Interval (Sec) 15 R 9 8 10 12 13 13 10 13 14 16 16 18 23 25 32 59 Depth Below i *Reference Point I Time Interval (Ft) I (Sec) i 0 - 1 I 12 1-2 I 8 2-3 I 9 3-4 I 11 4 - 5 I 10 5-6 I 10 •Reference point - top of casing. A-13 84-21i GROUNDWATER RECOVERY RESULTS • GROVE SQUARE COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA LETCO JOB NO. HL-2681 Depth Below I *Reference Point I Time Interval (Ft) i (Sec) Well No* 2 6- 7 I 13 Test No. 7 - 8 I 14 8 - 9 I 16 (cont'd.) 9 - 10 I 18 10 - 11 I 26 0411 - 12 I 30 12 - 13 I 56 . 13 - 14 I 14 - 14.7 ( 102 177 *Reference point - top of casing. 1 A-14 84-217 BOREHOLE SEEPAGE TEST RESULTS GROVE SQUARE • COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA LETCO JOB NO. ML-2681 Depth to I IConstantlCoefficient jI Borehole I Groundwater I I Test I of ► +ell ! Test 1 Test Depth I Level Before I Discharge - Q I Head IPermeability tjo. I (Feet) I Testing (Feet)I (GPM) { (Ft) I (cm/sec) 34.5 I 14.5 { 0.37 l I 15.5 I I 6.8 X 10-4 { I 2 I 1 I 41.5 I I I 14.5 I 2.22 I I 18 I l 3.5 X 10-3 I 1* 1 2 I 44 1 14.7 I 48.17 I 15.7 I 1.6 X 10 -2 I 2** 1 2 I I { 23.5 I i 14.7 I 9.26 I I I 14.7 I I I 1.5 X 10-2 I I 3***I 1 I I I 46 I 14.7 ( 0.37 I 15.8 _ I 1.8 X 10 4 — 3 1 2 I 85 I 14.8 I 68.69 I t 1 I 0.46 Li *Groundwater recovered to normal level within 30 seconds after testing completed. **Open borehole test within Miami Limestone. *"Groundwater level recovery similar to Test No. 1, in Well No. 1. tHy draulic head is estimated. Difficult to measure during testing, and groundwater recovered practically immediately after completion of testing. a 1 A-15 84-217 0 0 LABORATORY TEST RESULTS INTERDEVCO - MULTILEVEL COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL BUILDING COCONUT GROVE, FLORIDA LAW ENGINEERING TESTING COMPANY CORAL GABLES. FLORIDA LETCO Job No. ML-2605 Sample Moisture Boring Depth (ft.) Content (%) 3-3 43.5 - 45.0 22.5 5-4 33.5 - 35.0 23.4 9-5 28.5 - 30.0 22.2 % Passing Sample #,200 Sieve Description 1.8 nuartz fine SAND (SP) 1.8 Quartz fine SAND (SP) 1.6 Quartz fine SAND (SP) NOTE: For additional laboratory data see the attached grain size distribution curves. 84-21''/ KrAs ci:i6 M. lP41 :41:i:vt;! CORRELA$N OF PENETRATION RESISTANCE ` WITH ROCK HARDNESS DESCRIPTION RELATIVE DENSITY AND CONSISTENCY ICONE STANDARD PENETRATION PENETRATION TEST TEST RELATIVE r kg/cm2 blows/ft. DENSITY SOFT Rock core crumbles when handled 0.16 0.4 Very Loose { 17 . 40 5 - 10 Loose I MEDIUM, Can break core with your hands SANDS 41 • 80 11 - 20 Firm 81. 120 21 • 30 Very Firm MODERATELY Thin edges of rock core can be Over 120 31 • 50 Dense HARD broken with finger CONSISTENCY 1 0.3 0. 2 Very Soft HARD Thin edges of rock core cannot be 4.9 3-4 Soft broken with fingers SILTS 10. 17 5.8 Firm AND VERY HARD Rock core rings when struck with CLAYS 18 • 31 9.15 Stiff Ie hammer Ichertal 32 • 60 16. 30 Very Stiff Over 60 31 - 50 Hard SYMBOLS LID Undisturbed sample (UDI recovered 100/2•• Number of blows (1001 to drive the spoon or cone a number of inches (2••) NX, 4", 6" Core barrel sizes which obtain cores 2 1 /8". 3 7/8" and 5 7/8•• diameter respectively 659E Percentage (65) of rock core and soil sample recovered ROD Rock Ouality Designation - percent of rock core 4 or more inches long --r Water table at least 24 hours after drilling Water table one hour or less after drilling Loss of drilling fluid UC Unconfined Compression Test performed, includes strength and Young's modulus ST Split Tension Test performed, includes tensile strength SS Split Spoon Sample r ER Erratic Cone Penetration t MODIFIERS APPROXIMATE FINES CONTENT MODIFIERS 5% to 12% SlrghUy silty or slightly clayey 12% to 30% Silty or clayey 30% to 50% Very silty or very clayey The modifiers provide our estimate of the amount Of fines Isrlt or clay site Panicles) in the soil sample. 84.+21 if 0 0 0 ELEV. DEPTH DESCRIPTION R P S L rT . STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, KG/CM2 n to 9n 1A An Rn Rn ?A en en.n. •18 G ee a°e MEDIUM TO SOFT TAN -WHITE POROUS TO VERY POROUS CHALKY OOLITIC LIMESTONE i 00°ee fee cot A U . ewe G v e°o e E . . . . . . . 'e oe R goo eo°$ B pO°O O oo°$ R °e o 0 I ee°D N ooe° G o°e°o eo � O p00 O 00 00 O � 00 00 O C� O O � p o oo R e° e; O . 00 T ppo 0 A . po o p T OO oe°e O N peon eo poop po°e O o°o F o6z C ',,Do ocoo A oeO 0 0° S •B.0 26.0 ° N . ,. QUARTZ FINE SAND WITH SOME LIMESTONE G • FRAGMENTS I ' o o: (NO SAMPLE RECOVERED) ' •16.0 34.0WfF . OROUS TO VERY POROUS QUARTZ_7i +' C 35.0ANDY LIMESTONE R • 1. ROCK CORE RECOVERY, ROD, AND BIT SIZE P • PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT (ASTM 0.1586) S SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES, WATER LEVEL, LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID. ETC. 20 TL • LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC 30 SS CONE PENETRATIONSIER) DC DC • DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIO' RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 12 It INCREMENT BORING NUMBER WB•+ DRILLING INITIATED ' i t, DRILLING COMPLETED-1i Zia JOB No. ML•:6s1 PAGE + OF— 2 4ER LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. � MIAM1, FLA. A ,Z1 VERTICLE SCALE 1" a S' A4 4 in 0 0 STATIC CONE PENETRATION ELEV. DEPTH RESISTANCE. KG/CM2 FT. DESCFIIPTION R P S L n la 211 in 10 Se Be 76 an en . nr. •iB G M TO SOFT TAN -WHITE POROUS TO OROUS CHALKY OOLITICONE POOR A G e ee ° R ee o°$ 6 °O°e O oo°o 0 R eup I eo° N o°e° G o°o° e etoo e ee 0 i u oe o 0 � oe ° $e e e � 00 e o 0 ee R e e'o O . ° oo T a o A . o°gO ago 00 °o O e'o 11 ae e e a'oo O °eO°e e F ee e oe A o° o S ,. QUARTZ FINE SAND WITH SOME LIMESTONE G FRAGMENTS .o• (NO SAMPLE RECOVERED) ' •16.0 34.0 � . POROUS TO VERY POROUS QUARTZ -�' C 35.0 SANDY LIMESTONE R - % ROCK CORE RECOVERY, ROD, AND BIT SIZE P - PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT IASTM D-1566) S - SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES, WATER LEVEL, LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID. ETC. _los L - LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC 3S CONE PENETRATIONS(ER) 1oo 65 •� JOB N0. ML•2661 4ER LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. DC DC - DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIO' RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 12 it INCREMENT BORING NUMBER WS-1 DRILLING INITIATEDJIJI DRILLING COMPLETED PAGE 1 OF 2 VERTICLE SCALE I" • S' a u no 0 0 ELEV. DEPTH DESCOIPTION R P S L FT. STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, KG/CM2 •n tH An -pw en ww . wn OO 10 eo° MEDIUM TO SOFT TAN -WHITE POROUS TO ' gee VERY POROUS CHALKY OOLITIC coo, LIMESTONE { Qo 0 eoe po$g A U . coop G ioeo 0 E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ee°O R eeo°g 9 eee 0 O . oo°O$ R , eee e N oeeo G be e 0 e o0 o eeo { e oe 0 oeo ° o0 °e nee eeo .. .. ... e o0 ° ee 00 0 a eo R Do eo O 'o° o T A oeoO oe °oeo 1.0 1 ooe O 0 o°o ° eo N o°o °oo O e F o °Oe o°e ° C o°oO °eo00eo A S •8.9 26.0 0°,°,,° 1 . ' N QUARTZ FINE SAND WITH SOME LIMESTONE G • FRAGMENTS { o• (NO SAMPLE RECOVERED) • L6.0 34.0 POROUS TO VERY POROUS QUARTZ7 0 35.0 SANDY LIMESTONE R • % ROCK CORE RECOVERY, ROD, AND BIT SIZE P . PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT (ASTM D•15661 S SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SIMPLES, WATER LEVEL, LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID. ETC. C T30 L • LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC SS CONE PENETRATIONS(ER) 165 �• JOB No. ML•2661 4•• w'= ER LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. MIAM1, FLA. A 21 DC DC • DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIO' I RESISTANCE. BLOWS PER 12 It INCREMENT BORING NUMBER we•1 DRILLING INITIATEDJJJI DRILLING COMPLETED-. PAGE I OF 4 VENTICLE SCALE 1" ■ S' 84-21 i 2 ELEV. DEPTH DESCRIPTION R P S L FT. STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE. KG/CM2 .e eR 1n In Rn Rn In Dn en InO •1 c 3s 1. MODERATELY HARD TAN -WHITE POROUS CORALLINE LIMESTONE 60 34 NX 30 0 NX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BORING TERMINATED P' 44.0' R • ROCK CORE RECOVERY, ROD. AND BIT SIZE P. PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT DC I (ASTM 0•I586) S SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES, WATER LEVEL, LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID, ETC. 12 L • LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC � G SS CONE PENETRATIONS(ER) uD too JOB NO. ML•2681 LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. j �MIAMI,FLA. DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE. BLOWS PER 12 IN( INCREMENT BORING NUMBER WS-1 DRILLING INITIATED I Ili c DRILLING COMPLETED 111 PAGE 2 OF 2 VCRTIC. LE m'4Fj„21 i TL51 EiUKING STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE. KG/CM2 ELM DEFTH DESCRIPTION R P S L 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 10 FO 00 tOC eta o »ee •eve MEDIUM TO SOFT TAN -WHITE POROUS TO vet VERY POROUS CHALKY OOLITIC LIMESTONE ,°ea° e e. °•w A U e0 G . Do uee E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ° gs° R 0 ee B ego O R e00 ee 1 e°e° eee N °e°e G eoo i w e°e e°O e °ee° — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • e so .ee •Do . . . . . . . . eee e °o R . ee • O O . ego° T °o O a A T ee°o e� O e°oe° N e•ee e 0 C •oo e o° A S . o e°o I o° OUARTZ FINE SAND WITH SOME LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS , (NO SAMPLE RECOVERED] R • ♦ ROCK CORE RECOVERY. ROD. AND BIT SIZE • ►ENCTRATION RESISTANCE. SLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT IASTM D•1526) SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES. WATER LEVEL. LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID. ETC. r;) Oil L • LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC CONE PCNCTRATIONS(ER) DC . DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE. BLOWS PER 12 INCH INCREMENT BORING NUMBER WB•z DRILLING INITIATED 1111cle DRILLING COMPLETED II"T .:. ER JOB No. ML•1681 LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. PAGE 1 OF 2 84-217 MIAM1. FLA. VERTICLE SCALE 1" a $' A "TEST BORING ■ r r ELEV. DEPTH FT. 46 DESCRIPTION R P S L STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, KG/CM2 n t0 20 20 40 So 60 70 E0 antnot -23.$ 41.55 MEDIUM TO MODERATELY HARD POROUS TO VERY POROUS QUARTZ SANDY AND CORALLINE LIMESTONE BORING TERMINATED ® 41.5• C A S N G . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . R ROCK CORE RECOVERY, ROD, AND BIT SIZE ►. PENETRATION RCSISTANCE. BLOWS PER 0 INCH INCREMENT IASTM 0•I5i6) S SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES, WATER LEVEL. LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID, ETC. 1� L. LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC it S$ CONE PENCTRATIONS(ER) 4.. c .JOB No. ML-2661 LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. MIAM1. FLA. OC VC • DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE. BLOWS PER i 2 INCI- INCREMENT BORING NUMBER WB•l DRILLING INITIATED II to I DRILLING COMPLETED 1111( PAGE 2 OF 2 s4-21'7 VERTICLE SCALE 1" a S' ItJI f3V1'tttYls ELEV. DEPTH DESCRIPTION R P S L FT. STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, KG/CM2 n ew en 1A Ln Rn an 9n an an•AP •18.0 S ee e MEDIUM TO SOFT TAN -WHITE POROUS TO coat VERY POROUS CHALKY OOLITIC LIMESTONE A e eo °� G 0 R eao� . . . . . . . . . . . °e cc o O O R e eoe N °Do! G CD[ � ° 6.op 0 to Oee . . . . . ee° e ° :Coo e ° o ee O0 e • 00D1 OO 00 C O . . O e0 C D . O e0 O e R e °oe e O o°e T $e e A eoo T $to 1 0 0 N o°e °o e G e o°o ° oe Q000 °o o O o°e� F eoDe oeoe C •9.0 2i.0 0o A . .'•:: S .,;.' QUARTZ FINE SAND WITH SOME LIMESTONE I FRAGMENTS N G '' (NO SAMPLE RECOVERED) .17 0 ]S.o R • ROCK CORE RECOVERY, ROD, AND BIT SIZE ►• PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT IASTM D•15861 S - SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES, WATER LEVEL. LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID. ETC. 7tt) L • LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC CONE PENETRATIONS(ER) 1 c e ,Z..- laI- DC • DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 12 INCH INCREMENT BORING NUMBER WB-a DRILLING INITIATED 10 11 e DRILLING COMPLETED Ic 111 — = ' ErR JOB No. ML•2661 LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. PAGE I OF2 84--21. 7 MIAM1, FLA. VERTICLE SCALE 1" 5' STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, KG/CM2 2 `t v altoll DESCRIPTION R P S L /•T. n In 90 fn ee 46 60 It i+n untnc )! C C . QUARTZ FINE SAND WITH SOME LIMESTONE A FRAGMENTS S (NO SAMPLE RECOVERED) 1 N G MEDIUM TO MODERATELY HARD POROUS TO VERY POROUS QUARTZ SANDY AND 48 CORALLINE LIMESTONE ' (CORALLINE LIMESTONE FROM 44' TO 461) NX ;t L ate BORING TERMINATED @ 46.0' • ................... i DC A ' � MOCK CORE RECOVERY, ROD, AND BIT SIZE ► th"PATION RESISTANCC, BLOWS PER • INCH INCREMENT OC DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION IASTa1 O.ISl{I RESISTANCE. BLOWS PER 12 INCF INCREMENT SVM130LS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UND-ISTURBCD t WATER LEVEL. LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID. ETC. SAMPLES, BORING NUMBER Ws-1 L • LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC DRILLING INITIATED 1 1^ 1 c io 1. CONE PENCTRATIONS(ERI DRILLING COMPLETED I I Ic uo +a + --- tot JOB No. ML•26B1 PAGE 2 OF LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. .� 21'7 MIAMI, FLA. 84VERTICLE SCALE 1" . S' ELEV DEPTH . DESCRIPTION STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE. KG/CM2 R P S L n 16 20 30 40 SO 60 70 Pe antnc ego eo eoeo I S SS o°e 15 * i oe 55 ee° SOFT TO MEDIUM TAN WHITE POROUS 1E S5 eee° OOLITIC LIMESTONE . °oe e 20 *2 �Go e 1 3 0oe e e°e 7 e e6 * 3 oe$ e 1 6 oe oe 0ao 17 SS eee° 17 +r4 e o°0 14 eoe° too 0 e° ve °e .B 1 3.S o0 0° ._� 9 SS e � e e 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ee o o o MEDIUM TAN WHITE POROUS TO VERY °o°o POROUS SLIGHTLY OOLITIC QUARTZ - •1.0 17.5 SANDY i IM_E. TONE_WITH SOLUTION Ole ee CHANNELS PARTIALLY FILLED WITH . SS e QUARTZ FINE SAND 6 . ee° 6 ° ae eN °e � e e oee ee � e° oe °"eo 5 SS Ole 4 *7 e.7 25.0 •.e 3 1.0 •' FIRM TAN WHITE TO BROWN QUARTZ FINE SAND WITH 1 IMESTAIIE AND • SANDSTONE FRAGMENTS (SP) 6 . SS 5 06 . . .. .. .. .......... SS 35.0 4 7 R ' ROCK CORE RECOVERY, ROD, AND BIT SIZE PENCTRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT IASTM D•1 SS6) S SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES, WATER LEVEL. LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID, ETC. I' L • LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC j0 S: CONE PENETRATIONSIER) DC DC DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER I2 IN INCREMENT BORING NUMBER 0•1 DRILLING INITIATED DRILLING COMPLETED 1_2c _ C R J08 No. ML•2661 LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. i PAGE 1 OF 8401002117 MIAMI, FLA. VERTICAL SCALE 1" • 5' ELEV. DEPTH FT DESCRIPTION STATIC CONE PENETRATION P RESISTANCE. KG/CM2 R 5 L n to en 1n In %C to 76 Gn a Ih� 1 6.7 •40.7 36.0 60.0 SAhLL SAME AS ABOVE 5 5 5 12 9 13 100 13 5 19 28 36 . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . ................ . . MEDIUM TO MODERATELY HARD TAN- WHITE TO TAN -YELLOW POROUS TO VERY POROUS SHELLY QUARTZ SANDY LIMESTONE WITH SOLUTION CHANNELS PARTIALLY FILLED WITH QUARTZ SAND (STANDARD PENETRATION TEST REFUSAL AT 48.5 ' - NO SAMPLE RECOVERED) SS 10 SS 11 SS 12 SS 13 Si 14 BORING TERMINATED AT 60.0' R • ♦ ROCK CORE RECOVERY. ROD. AND BIT SIZE ►• PENETRATION RESISTANCE. BLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT IASTM D•1586) S SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES. WATER LEVEL. LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID, ETC. L • LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC jp SS CONE PENETRATIONS(ER) �� ER JOB No. ML-2661 + LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. MIAM1, FLA. DC DC DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATIt RESISTANCE. BLOWS PER 12 INCREMENT BORING NUMBER 13-1 DRILLING INITIATEDI'?c DRILLING COMPLETEDI_' PAGE 2 OF = 84-21'7 VERTICAL SCALE 1" • S' N.'.'; r+� �.^.::, _�. r4,.w.� �, a • . - t apt.. I- STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, KG/CM2 ELEV DEPTH DESCRIPTION R P S L FT 0 10 20 30 40 SC 60 70 EO 1010E •1:.3 1� •6.3 .2.3 •1.3 km km ka •7.7 IN •1 6.i •17.i 4 E ;M • 11• • N 35 SOFT TO MEDIUM TAN -WHITE POROUS �• jyI OOLITIC 1FSTONE WITH.SOLUTION 4" �• CHANNELS FILLED WITH UNCEMENTED CALCAREOUS MATERIAL e IN: i=e 37 `e� • i•e 3G �•,e c c ie° 4" 0 • e e •o 11.0 ceep • •e e e° c$°oo SOFT TO MEDIUM TAN -WHITE VERY 57 POROUS OOLITIC I IMFe_TONF WITH S2 0 OPEN SOLUTION CHANNELSWoo • I s.o €e ee 4' _ 16.0 • ae°po - 0 eye MEDIUM TAN -WHITE VERY POROUS SLIGHTLY OOLITIC SHELLY QUARTZ eee° SANDY i FC IMTONEWITH SOLUTION 7 e $ CHANNELS PARTIALLY FILLED WITH 0,00 QUARTZ AND CALCAREOUS MATERIAL 0 0 oe00a NX e e e8e 5 SS 0 00 ee• 4 SS va in 3 2S.0 •o FIRM TAN QUARTZ FINE SAND WITH LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS (SP) SS 6 . *3 'o 7 c �" 33.5 100• 35.0 N . SAME AS BELOW 2•• [—I (STANDARD PENETRATION TEST REFUSAL AT 33.6') DC R • % ROCK CORE RECOVERY, ROD, AND BIT SIZE DC DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION P- PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT (ASTM 0•15116) S - SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES. WATER LEVEL. LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID, ETC. 12 l LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC 20 SS CONE PCNETRATIONS(ER) T w JOB No. ML-2681 ER LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. Jk MIAMI, FLA. RESISTANCE. BLOWS PER 12 IN INCREMENT BORING NUMBER B-` DRILLING INITIATED 1.21-E DRILLING COMPLETEDI_1- PAGE -OF OF �i 2 VERTICAL- SCAL 1" MS. TEST SORT STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE. KG/CM2 [L[v DE �T DESCRIPTION R P S L 0 10 20 30 40 SO 60 70 EO 9010G •tl.7 i t •72.7 -ADA MODERATELY HARD POROUS TO VERY POROUS YELLOW -BROWN FOSSILIFEROUS WEATHERED QUARTZ SANDY IMESTONE 7 SS 5 AS 7 MEDIUM TO MODERATELY HARD TAN- 22 46 SS s6 WHITE POROUS TO VERY POROUS SHELLY 19 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . QUARTZ SANDY L1tdFCTON� 11 SS 9 97 50.000 9 FIRM GRAY PARTIALLY CEMENTED • QUARTZ FINE SAND WITH SHELL �A FRAGMENTS AND LENSES OF QUARTZ FINE GRAINED SANDSTONE (SP) 9 • 'I, 6 SS • •. 10 4re •� (STANDARD PENETRATION TEST REFUSAL AT S6.1' - NO SAMPLE RECOVERED) 58.1 BORING TERMINATED AT 56.1' SS t00` 1.. *9 R ' % ROCK CORE RECOVERY, ROD. AND BIT SIZE • ►ENCTRATION RESISTANCE. BLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT IASTM O•IS86) S SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES. WATER LEVEL, LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID, ETC. L • LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC �G S: CONE PCNCTRATIONS(ER) IGz �_ . ML•2681 JOB No. �.. ER LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. MIAMI, FLA. OG OC DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE. BLOWS PER 12 INC INCREMENT BORING NUMBER e4 DRILLING INITIATED1-21•az DRILLING COMPLETEDI'21•' PAGE 2 OF 2 84-217 VERTICAL SCALE I" w S. ►, STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, KG/CM2 ELEV DEPTH FT. DESCRIPTION R P 5 L en ,n An ec Re 70ae an i ec 11 4 r� 0 0 apse e 0 gee e 0 e06 e e e eo° TAN -WHITE POROUS TO VERY POROUS e°o o OOLITIC TO SLIGHTLY OOLITIC I IM STONE , e e°o ee (NO SAMPLE RECOVERED) 0 e o° ee 0 e AS 0 e° oe e ee . ee °eO e ee °eee • 1 .3 1 S.S °O e e$ 0 ee°e o° o° ee °O e e°°ee • po ° ve ee°e to ee e eeo e ee 6.5 23.5 ee°O at MEDIUM TAN -WHITE POROUS SHELLY SS e;: QUARTZ SANDY I IMESTONE WJQTZ. SAND 3 ati •b.0 25.0 ►F �e. ►'� FIRM TO VERY LOOSE GRAY -BROWN TO SS •.� TAN -YELLOW QUARTZ FINE SAND WITH 7 . e THIN LENSES OF FINE GRAINED QUARTZ 7 «2 •'•� SANDSTONE (SP) 7 e' i= SS R % ROCK CORE RECOVERY, ROD, AND BIT SIZE P • PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT IASTM 0-1566) S SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES, WATER LEVEL, LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID. ETC. T3-; :L- LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC C s;CONE PCNETRATIONSIER) 0 DC DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 12 INC INCREMENT BORING NUMBER B•] DRILLING INITIATED1.22-sz DRILLING COMPLETEDI.22•s I6� EN JOB No. ML•2661 OF 2 PAGE -OF LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. 84-217 MIAMI, FLA. VERTICAL SCALE 1" 1 S' WIN! 1:1011010illippil STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, KG/CM2 ELEV. DEPTH DESCRIPTION R P 5 L FT. 0 10 20 30 40 SC 60 70 1!0 90 t 00 't! 0 35.G •:3.0 $0.0 o. 29.5 46.5 36.5 53.5 •i , •41 .9 56.6 'r VERY LOOSE TAN -BROWN QUARTZ FINE SAID_ (SP) SS 1= • 18" 04 VERY LOOSE BROWN -GRAY QUARTZ FINE SAND_(SP) 1= SS 1 8 " 3 9 14 as . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . RATELY HARD TAN- LLY QUARTZ FYLIMr-STMNE SS *6 8 20 21 SS 07 , . DENSE TAN -WHITE TO GRAY PARTIALLY CEMENTED QUARTZ FINE SAN WITH CALCAREOUS QUARTZ SANDSTONE FRAGMENTS AND QUARTZ SANDY LIMESTONE LENSES . 100. 3" SS *6 (STANDARD PENETRATION TEST REFUSAL AT 56.8•) BORING TERMINATED AT 56.8' . DC Is. w ♦ ROCK CORE RECOVERY. ROD. AND BIT SIZE DC DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION / • PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 12 INC (ASTM 0•15&6) INCREMENT S • SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES. 9•3 WATER LEVEL. LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID, ETC. BORING NUtABER L • LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC DRILLING INITIATED 1•tt-c. io ss CONE PENETRATIONS(ER) DRILLING COMPLETEDIE- 10 uD Itt � r ER JOB No. ML•2681 PAGE 2 OF Z -�21'7 MIAMI, FLA. VERTICAL SCALE 1" S' LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. 84 [L�r DEPFT 0 DESCRIPTION STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, KG/CM2 R P 5 L n vA en !fl in SG 6n 7n an On ln! .IE � 15 SS °°ee 19 ee°O 1 P °O e at 17 SS eeel eee° e 17 t2 epee y e ss a e 21 e°ee°° SOFT TO MEDIUM TAN • WHITE POROUS 19 #3 at TO VERY POROUS OOLITIC I LIAESTIONE 21 o° e' ee 00°0 1 3 . SS °0 e 12 # 4 e eo0 13 e° e o ee 0 o°e° a 0 00 000 SS 0eeee 1 i e 0 EI # 5 • 3.0 15.0 0evo 9 0 ooe oe 0e O 20 e°ge oeoe e o 14 SS e°e°o 9 # 6 2.0 20.0 : 00 7 e a °° 000 MEDIUM TAN -WHITE VERY POROUS 00s0 QUARTZ SANDY t IM STo E WITH "ee SOLUTION CHANNELS PARTIALLY FILLED . c°000 WITH QUARTZ FINE SAND S ee a e ee 4 SS . eo° # 7 •7.0 25.0 oxA 4 SS e•e 4 . FIRM TO LOOSE TAN -BROWN QUARTZ FINE 6 SAND WITH SHELL AND QUARTZ SANDY '•� LIMESTONE FRAGMENTS (SP) 2 SS �• •17.0 35.0 '.: r9 R • % ROCK CORE RECOVERY, RQD, AND BIT SIZE P • PENETRATION RESISTANCE. SLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT (ASTM D•1546) S • SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES, WATER LEVEL. LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID. ETC. 12 L- LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC 20 SS CONE PENETRATIONS(ER) 30 DC DYNAMIC CLINE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 12 INC INCREMENT BORING NUMBER 6.4 DRILLING INITIATEDI.26.62 DRILLING COMPLETEDI.261 ifgoo iS 4" -010— �� EIR JOB NoML•2681 . LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. PAGE 1 OF 2 84-217 MIAMI, FLA. VERTICAL SCALE I" ■ S' k N I it G I I I I I - 17 STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE. KG/CM2 ELEV. DEFT T DESCRIPTION R P S L iP eP eP '/n cA &A.AP •17.0 .20.5 •42.0 35.0 38.5 60.0 • = �' LOOSE YELLOW -BROWN QUARTZ FINE SAND WITH SHELL FRAGMENTS (SP) 4 4 6 24 2e 23 34 28 17 13 14 12 15 17 I5 • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . :. . DC MEDIUM TO MODERATELY HARD TAN - BROWN POROUS TO VERY POROUS SHELLY QUARTZ SANDY I IMFCTDNE WITH SOLUTION CHANNELS PARTIALLY FILLED WITH QUARTZ SAND SS A10 t S SS 12 SS *13 SS 014 BORING TERMINATED AT 60.0' R •,. ROCK CORE RECOVERY, ROD, AND BIT SIZE P • PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT (ASTM 0•1586) S SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES, TiWATER LEVEL, LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID, ETC. : L• LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC 0 SS CONE PENETRATIONSIER)) DC DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 12 INCh INCREMENT BORING NUMBER B•4 — DRILLING INITIATED 1.26.62 DRILLING COMPLETEDL26-8: too JOB No. MI •2681 PAGE 2 OF2 ER LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. 84--217 MIAMI, FLA. VERTICAL SCALE i" S' ELEV. DEPTM FT TEST BORI 0 DESCRIPTION R P S L STATIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, KG/CM2 n In Sn 1H An ftr an 7H cw •w. •17.3 too • 03 O 00 C eOR F0 • •e :• 60 ee e e pie° TAN -WHITE POROUS TO VERY POROUS °sa° OOLITIC TO SLIGHTLY OOLITIC LIME -es o- E a* e 0 gee . e e eeo° a°aO° (NO SAMPLE RECOVERED) aee e AS e pe O o• •ee• e• ,.O 'e • e e• e •e e e° • ee •1.2 16.5 a°a 13 SS ee°O$ SOFT TO MEDIUM TAN -WHITE POROUS i I •ei SLIGHTLY OOLITIC QUARTZ SANDY 9 . . . . . . eye60 so IMGST�NE e eve" MEDIUM TAN -WHITE POROUS SHELLY QUARTZ SANDY 1 iM SXQN ss .e s 0 o «2 7.7 25.0 l VERY LOOSE TAN -YELLOW QUARTZ SS FINE SAND WITH QUARTZ FINE GRAINED 2 SANDSTONE FRAGMENTS 1 93 , •e •17.7 35.0 WH SS ►': H s 4 wM • SPOON ADVANCED UNDER THE WEIGHT OF THE HAMMER AND RODS. R ROCK CORE RECOVERY, ROD, AND BIT SIZE • PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT (ASTM 0.15&6) S • SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES. WATER LEVEL, LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID, ETC. 1i L • LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC G �55 TCONE PENETRATIONS(ER) DC DC DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE. BLOWS PER 1 z INCH INCREMENT BORING NUMBER 8-5 DRILLING INITIATED 1.25•22 DRILLING COMPLETEDI-z5-E: 100 6, -[wU JOB No. ML•2681 PAGE I OF 2 LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. MIAh4f, FLA, S4�'2i~� VERTICAL SCALE 1" ■ S' ILbI evn► ELEV. DEPTH FT. . e 35.0 0 DESCRIPTION 0 R P S L STATIC CONE PENETPA- ON RESISTANCE. KG/CM2 n t0 20 20 40 SC 60 70 1.[ ,n.nP •21 .2 -42.7 38.5 60.0 ••�. ° •' ' ' VERY LOOSE TAN -YELLOW QUARTZ FINE SA II.WITH QUARTZ FINE GRAINED SANDSTONE FRAGMENTS (SP) 17 39 26 14 12 90 13 5 7 2 7 q 10 13 21 ..... • MEDIUM TO MODERATELY HARD TAN- WHITE TO YELLOW SHELLY QUARTZ SANDY t IMFGTONE WITH SOLUTION CHANNELS PARTIALLY FILLED WITH QUARTZ FINE SAND (TRACE OF CORALLINE LIMESTONE FROM 48.5•TO 30.0') SS *5 SS C6 SS *7 SS I� 8 SS *9 BORING TERMINATED AT 60.0' R • 1. ROCK CORE RECOVERY, ROD, AND BIT SIZE P. PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 6 INCH INCREMENT (ASTM 0•1586) S - SYMBOLS FOR SPLIT SPOON AND UNDISTURBED SAMPLES. WATER LEVEL, LOSS OF DRILLING FLUID, ETC. 12 L- LABORATORY TESTS PERFORMED AND ERRATIC zG 55 CONE PENETRATIONS(ER) DC DYNAMIC CONE PENETRATION RESISTANCE, BLOWS PER 12 INS INCREMENT BORING NUMBER B 5 DRILLING INITIA—ED1.25-6: DRILLING COMPL:'TEDt•25' 6� '� J08 No. ML-z6e1 PAGE 2 OF LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO. 84�-21.7 MIAMI, FLA. VERTICAL SCALE 5' . r At C sr-� awf-�. 2w LtNEI- "I . •« 1 11. i i i � � r cat j • • r• •, t% � T�R�t � �R1c..K 51G�.-�r11st.K. r �►.11 �S.G1� O'Ff i G� �. u �ti�cTt� SQuAt�E. 1�1��E � IN THE CIRCUIT J$JRT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL CIRUCIT IN AND FOR DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. YIANNIS B. ANTONIADIS, Objector, Appellant, vs. CITY OF MIAMI, CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, THE MIAMI ZONING BOARD, EARCA N.V. and INTERDEVCO GROVE SQUARE, INC., Commission, Appellees. r NOTICE IS GIVEN that, YIANNIS B. ANTONIADIS, Appellant, appeals to the Circuit Court in and for Dade County. Florida in its appellate jurisdiction the Order (Resolution No. 84-217) of the City Commission of Miami, affirming the Miami Zoning Board, rendered February 28, 1984. The nature of the order is a Final Agency Action, (a copy of the Order (Resolution No. 84-217) is attached hereto) . Respectfully submitted, HALL AND O'BRIEN, P.A. Attorneys for Appellant Suite 200, Brickell Concours 1401 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Telephone:.,(305) 374-5030 I CHARD F. O'BRIEN; III I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed to G. Miriam Maer, Assistant City Attorney 169 E. Flagler Street, Suite 1101, Miami, Florida 33125; Jose Garcia-Pedrose, Assistant City Attorney, 169 E. Flagler Street, HALL AND DO RIEN P A, SRICKELL CONCOURS 1401 BRICKELL AVENUE, MIAMI, FLORIOA 33131.3688 Suite 1101, Miac,i, Florida 3?125; ngie, City Clerk of Miami, 3500 PaWmerican Drive, Miami, 161irda 33133; an to Stanley GPrice, Esquire, 2401 Douglas Road, Miami, Florida 33134 s2 / this day of March, 1984. Y R CHARD . O'BRIE , III OOOOc284.not/gpk 2 HALL AND 0 BRIEN P A BRICKELL CONCOURS. 1401 6RICKELL AVENUE. MIAMI, FLORIDA 3313l-35BB e#—a1? J-84-149(a) 2/15/84 RESOLUTION NO. 54-217, , A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE ZONING BOARD'S ACTION IN GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 9500 , AS AF;ENDED, ARTICLE 15, SECTION 1520, SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND SECTION 1527, MAXIMUM HEIGHT, TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE PROJECT {n-Rnvv- SQUARE) AT 2801 FLORIDA AVENUE, ALSO DLSCRIBED AS THE S 95' OF LOTS 25 AND 26 LESS THE E 5.0' AND THE S 5.0' THEREOF, BLOCK 4, WILLIAM A. RICE SUB (1-13) AND TRACTS "A" AND "B", GROVE SQUARE (121-83) AS PER PLANS ON FILE, WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 56.0' (50.0' PERMITTED) AND SUBJECT TO THE DEDICATION OF THE S 5' OF LOTS 25 AND 26 AND THE E 5' OF THE S 9' OF LOT 25; CONTAINING A TIME LIMITATION OF 12 MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED; ZONED SPI-2; COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting of February 13, 1984, Item No. 11 following an advertised hearing, adopted Resolution No. ZB 14-84, by a 7 to 0 vote GRANTING A VARIANCE as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, an objector has taken an appeal to the City Commission from the grant of the variance; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, after careful consideration of this matter, finds that there are peculiar circumstances af- fecting this parcel of land and practical difficulties which would impair the owner's right to the reasonable use of the property in the absence of the variance which has been requested as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The decision of the Zoning Board granting a variance from Ordinance No. 9500, as amended, Article 15, Section 1520, SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT and Section 15271 Maximum Height, to permit construction of a mixed use project (Grove Square) at 2801 Florida Avenue, also described as the S 95' of Lots 25 and 26 less the E 5.0' and the CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF FE8 26 19644 SOLU1101 NO. B •j�- 17' I J-84-149(a) 2/15/84 RESOLUTION NO. 84--217 A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE ZONING BOARD'S ACTION IN GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE NO. 9500, AS AMENDED, ARTICLE 15, SECTION 1520, SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AND SECTION 1527, MAXIMUM HEIGHT, TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE PROJECT 1GRnvE SQUARE) AT 2801 FLORIDA AVENUE, ALSO DESCRIBED AS THE S 95' OF LOTS 25 AND 26 LESS THE E 5.0' AND THE S 5.0' THEREOF, BLOCK 4, WILLIAM A. RICE SUB (1-13) AND TRACTS "A" AND "B", GROVE SQUARE (121-83) AS PER PLANS ON FILE, WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 56.0' (50.0' PERMITTED) AND SUBJECT TO THE DEDICATION OF THE S 5' OF LOTS 25 AND 26 AND THE E 5' OF THE S 9' OF LOT 25; CONTAINING A TIME LIMITATION OF 12 MONTHS IN WHICH A BUILDING PERMIT MUST BE OBTAINED; ZONED SPI-2; COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. WHEREAS, the Miami Zoning Board at its meeting of February 13, 1984, Item No. 1, following an advertised hearing, adopted Re:;olution No. ZB 14-84, by a 7 to 0 vote GRANTING A VARIANCE as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, an objector has taken an appeal to the City Commission from the grant of the variance; and WHEREAS, the City Commission, after careful consideration of this matter, finds that there are peculiar circumstances af- fecting this parcel of land and practical difficulties which would impair the owner's right to the reasonable use of the property in the absence of the variance which has been requested as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA; Section 1. The decision of the Zoning Board granting a variance from Ordinance No. 9500, as amended, Article 15, Section 1520, SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT and Section 1527, Maximum Height, to permit construction of a mixed use project (Grove Square) at 2801 Florida Avenue, also described as the S 95' of Lots 25 and 26 less the E 5.0' and the CITY COMMISSION MEETI14G OF FEB 28 1984 UIION No. 84-217, • S 5.0' thereof, Block 4, William A. Rice Sub (1-13) and Tracts "A" and "B", Grove Square (121-83) as per plans on file, with a Maximum Height of 56.0' (50.0' permitted) and subject to the dedication of the S 5' of Lots 25 and 26 and the E 5' of the S 9' of Lot 25, containing a time limitation of 12 months in which a building permit must be obtained and Zoned SPI-2: COCONUT GROVE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, is hereby affirmed. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of February r 1984. ATTEST: Maurice A. Ferre MAURICE A. FERRE, Mayor RAL H G. ONGIE ity Clerk PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: 4G-KIRIAM MAER Assistant City Attorney APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: 001, OSE GARCIA-PEDROSR City Attorney GMM/wpc/ab/219 2 I WN 84--217. , 2 i W JOHN G. FLETCHER ATTORNEY AT LAW SUITE 222 7600 RED ROAD 8011H M1AM1, 1MORMA 3314:1-R484 TELEPHONE (305) 665 7521 Clerk, City of Miami 3500 Pan American Dr. Miami, F1. 33133 Dear Clerk: May 14 , 1984 Re: Antoniadis v. City of Miami, et al., Case no. 84-075 AP Enclosed herewith please find another copy of the notice of appeal in the above matter. it is my understanding that you did not receive a copy of the notice of appeal although one, I under- stand, was forwarded to you. However, it is not necessary for you to prepare the record in any hurry as we have filed a motion to transfer the proceedings, about which we will keep you posted. Cor,dl, iip John G. Fletcher � r JGF/nm cc: J. Garcia -Pedrosa S. Price R. O'Brien Y. Antoniadis MALL AhO O BRICN, P A BRIC►.ELL CONCOURS. 1401 bRICKELL AVENUE. MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131.3SBB I G YIANNIS B. ANTONIADIS, Objector, Appellant, vs. CITY OF MIAMI, CITY COMMISSION OF MIAMI, THE MIAMI ZONING BOARD, EARCA N.V. and INTERDEVCO GROVE SQUARE, INC., Commission, Appellees. JUDICIAL CIRUCI1 IN AND FOR COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.)_ 77imp .�., .,. V=-C! QT APPEAL NOTICE IS GIVEN that, YIANNIS B. ANTONIADIS, Appellant, appeals to the Circuit Court in and for Dade County, Florida in its appellate jurisdiction the Order (Resolution No. 84-217) of the City Commission of Miami, affirming the Miami Zoning Board, rendered February 28, 1984. The nature of the order is a Final Agency Action, (a copy of the Order (Resolution No. 84-217) is attached hereto). Respectfully submitted, HALL AND 01 BRI EN, P.A. Attorneys for Appellant Suite 200, Brickell Concours 1401 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Telepho (305) 374-5030 `ICHARD e. 01BRIEr, III , C E R PI FICATE SQf S-E-RV I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was mailed to G. Miriam Maer, Assistant City Attorney 169 E. Flagler Street, Suite 1101, Miami, Florida 33125; Jose Garcia-Pedrose, Assistant City Attorney, 169 E. Flagler Street, HALL AND 0 BRIEN, P A BRIV.ELL rDNCDLRs• I&DI NRICRrLL AVENUE. NIAW, rtDRIDA 33131.3ses • Stanley Pricer Fscu, 2401 Douglas Road, MiP-1, Florida 33134 to thi b day of Mar, , 1984. 4RICHAMRD'. RIE , III 0D0Dc284.not/gpk E MAIL <<:C C'bFI[N P A E'F-10►rll rL1.000PS 1401 ERlfIru A✓ILU[.MIAMI rLCFICA 33131.3566