LAND ALTMarjorie A. Sullivan
5681 W. Bavarian Pass
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
May 13, 1994
City of Fridley
6431 University Ave. N.E.
Fridley, Minnesota 55432
Attention: Barbara Dacy, AICP
Community Development Director
Re: Building Flans Submitted by Contractor John Paggen
on West Bavarian Pass, Innsbruck Villages Townhouse
Association
Dear Ms. Dacy,
I am writing to you as Chair of the Architectural Control
Committee for our townhouse association. Our committee has
met and reviewed the plans under consideration and has given
unanimous approval.
I can be reached at 571-6756 (h) or 929-9478 (o) if you have
questions or require additional information.
Sincerely,
Marj i Sullivan
Chair, Architectuaral Control Comm.
Innsbruck Villages Townhouse Assoc.
MAS
cc. John Paggen
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY. MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287
May 16, 1994
Mr. Phil Blasko, Architect
Brent Andersen Associates Inc
7610 Highway #65 NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Re: Preliminary Construction Documents (Paggen Haus)
Dear Mr. Blasko:
The plans submitted for the construction of a four unit townhouse located in
Innsbruck Villages are undergoing a preliminary plan review. Your attention
is directed to the statements listed but not limited to this review;
*UBC Table 5A.. Wall and opening protection of occupancies based on
location on property - Openings in exterior walls not permitted less than 3
feet.
*Openings located on the North, East and South walls.
*UBC 2203. Opening shall be protected with the minimum 3/4 hour.
*UBC 4507. Doors - no projection beyond the property.
*UBC 3304 (j). Landing at doors shall have the same width as the
stairway.
*Rescue windows shall meet the requirement as per UBC 1204.
*Light, ventilation as per UBC 1205.
*UBC 3306. Stairways and handrails shall comply - handrail ends shall
return or terminate in newel posts or safety terminals.
*UBC 503 (d),3. Separation of Group R and M occupancy - approved one-
hour fire resistive construction on the garage side and a self-closing door.
*Structural notes - should include information in regards to additional
load from high window application.
*Provision shall be made for the control of drainage.
I
Phil Blasko, Architect
May 16, 1994
Re: 4 Unit Townhouse Plan Review
Page 2
Your attention is directed to the above statements pertaining to the
preliminary construction documents. A further review will be required when
application for permit is requested (UBC 302). If you have any questions, do
not hesitate to call me at 572-3602. I trust you will comply with
requirements as set forth by the State of Minnesota and its adoption of rules
and the City of Fridley.
Sincerely,
JO
PA IO
7Chief Building Official
JP/mh
FRIDLEY MUNICIPAL CENTER • 6431 UNIVERSITY AVE. N.E. FRIDLEY, MN 55432 • (612) 571-3450 • FAX (612) 571-1287
May 27, 1994
Mr. Phil Blasko, Architect
Brent Andersen Associates Inc
7610 Highway #65 NE
Fridley, MN 55432
Re: Preliminary Construction Documents (Paggen Haus)
Dear Mr. Blasko:
The plans submitted for the construction of a four unit townhouse located in
Innsbruck Villages are undergoing a preliminary plan review. Your attention
is directed to the statements listed but not limited to this review;
Sheet A2, Lower Level -
*UBC Section 503 - 1 hour door shall be self-closing.
*UBC Section 1210 - Provide hard wired smoke detectors by bedrooms and
mechanical rooms (upper and lower levels).
*UBC Section 1204 - Bedrooms shall have rescue windows, minimum of 5.7
square feet fully openable.
*UBC Section 1205(e) - Ventilation shall be provided in bathrooms and
laundry rooms and similar rooms with a mechanical ventilation system
capable of providing five air changes per hour.
*UBC Section 3306(j) - Handrails shall be placed not less than 34 inches
and no more than 38 inches above the nosing of treads and shall be
continuous the full length. Handrails shall extend not less than 6
inches beyond the top and bottom riser and shall return or shall
terminate in newel post or safety terminals.
Sheet A3, Upper Level -
*Comments as per sheet A2 to include guardrail the minimum of 36 inches
high, maximum spaces of 6 inches, around stairway opening.
Sheet A4 -
*UBC Section 302(b) - Provide information and data for beam construction
of clearstory window application.
Mr. Phil Blasko, Architect
Re: Preliminary Construction Documents
May 27 , 1994
Page 2
Sheet A5 -
*UBC Section 23 - All metal hangers and bracing of floor and roof system
shall be designed and supplied by manufacturer - at all bearing points.
*UBC Section 1707 - Provide flashing for window for water splash.
*UBC Section 2516(k) - For units C & D, garage wall detail.
*UBC Table 32-B-1 - Provide ice shield to extend 24 inches beyond
exterior wall.
*UBC Table 32-A - Roof covering, if not more than 3000 square feet of
projected roof area and is 10 feet from property line, may be a nonrated
system.
*UBC Appendix Chapter 35 - Provide sound transmission control for walls,
floor and ceiling.
Sheet S1 -
*UBC Section 2907- Provide frost footing for landings.
*UBC Section 3306(j) - Check code requirements for stairs and handrail
requirements for height. ,
*UBC Section 2.905 - Provide a report from soils engineer for placement
and design of footing and foundation.
*UBC Appendix Chapter 70 - Provide grading plan and control of
excavation.
Your attention is directed to the above statements pertaining to the
preliminary construction documents. A further review will be required when
application for permit is requested (UBC 302). If you have any questions, do
not hesitate to call me at 572-3602. I trust you will comply with
requirements as set forth by the State of Minnesota and its adoption of rules
and the City of Fridley.
Sincerely,
N PALACIO
Chief Building Official
JP/mh
4.
Receipt # � "1
Fee: $__Z4 q. q. o
30.00 PIrA.% CL 1.fA(-
27y.ya
APPLICANT-"-
Address
PPLICANT
Address
CITY OF FRTQLI�Y
LAND ALTERATION PERMIT
P I \ If
PROPERTY 01A'NERS
NAME. cm -
Address
NAME
Address
Effective 10/7/93
52f
W %v
Tel. -
Tel. #
T LGAL DESC:l2:[I?'I'ION OF PROPERTY
Lot ck Addition
Lj
DESCRIFFION OF T AND ALTERATION
Value of Work: $ � — Starting Oat.e: _1 559 Completion Dawvt2Y,6
and Coil) poiiion of r'i((:_ �° Qdn CA
� l n
c'cVey,
Cc�G
y,• e
PURPOSE OF LAND AIXERATION
GLY
ATTACHM NES TO APPLICATION
,fie following plans, drawings, el"Iculatiorts, bonds and/or statements
Department: 111,1Y be requiredby the Public: Works
Ilalf-section map or sketch of property showing all adjacent property indicating the existing buildings
and/or stnlctures.
[ Grading plan showing existing and proposed finished contours and evaluations.
[ J Drainage plan showing existing and proposed drainage structures,mstabilization walls, retaining walls,
cribbing; dams, or other protective items.
[ Calculations for and approximate quantities of excavation and/or fill required.
f l Signed statement from the property owner accepting responsibility for the operation and granting
permission for land altcratioli/ruining operation. g
[ ] Statemeeit to be attached to cited advising of potential need for soil tests prior to any construction
on lots wltere additional fill material has been placed..
[ j
:Rice Creek' -Wi,te.rshed District .Approval.
Soil Rn g, " ?h e' Gp. %cc.. rv.'l/ �c i -c �..:.-� Jrings
s fAe e.;r sf.«t w,Cu .f. Ate dc6.., Y W4.SC✓er�
[ J
Other,.m .
O./w , AA c. Si�C� • �I f� �L. 4•w ��.wCf�
IT Gory �T C♦/� /`L�DOr�J S��// `t STIPULATIONS /
RLA BEFORE SIGNING ApfLICATION
1
"A: suret}i bond or certified check, in -the aniount of $. (5%.Qi vor
zllfe f quark to be
completed) .must be submitted'after Approval of application and prior to any work comrsiollc�in . 'lhis
bond or check is to ensure satisfacto g
ry perfor.manc:e and compliance with the below stated
Stipulations. The. surety bond or check shell be kept active until the conipletiola of work affoI-
exliii-ation of permit and can only be released by written ric)tificatioT, ()f the. City after a sat, l��c'
fill,'d insl)cc tioil Nos been performed by the City.
2. All rir..cess and street froritilge. of the Ian(l alteration sje, nl ist be controlled by . -I fC1)C.e, a Minimum
Of fou (4) feet in height. All entrances must have gates that are capable of being locked.
. Only rock, sand, gravel, dirt, or similar natural eartli fill is permitted. No concrete, asphalt, or
demolition wMtes will be permitted as fill unless a demolition landfill permit is first obtained froin
Anoka County.
4. Operations shall be limited to daylight hours and shill not interfere with the Ihcalth and safety of
surrounding residents and the premises shall be maintained at all times so as not to create. a
nuisance.
GREAT iso -,
StipuIndons Continua
5. Any explosives used must be done so in actt.oraunre %Nidi Chapter 212, subsections 2-12,07,5A l
.y >
,Xi M. and -5F, of the Fridloy City Code and ally other as}talirtat7le sttiriciartis, 0,A., p'kyderal, St;ato,
111dustual, etc.
At the end of each Seam's opermions and no later than the;Ast day of i)ctcirtitber each year, ttie
site is to be left in a neat and orderly condition, witit iituititurn filc:�pe� o��;i with no ove��ang or
vertical bans Find with a level bottorij,
7. On tate Frititq of each work work, or whe" ►}squired by flit City, material frons this ct mItiort that
9s fotitid to exist on City stleots shall be el"ned to 1110 City's stiti� dation by tho hppli ant. �f
g, tlp01i etorrtpletion of land alteXttUM operations, the land umst be left according to tlto p:Ans and
contours submitted with this i1pplication and planted witli suitable veget.,glou to prevent erosiou.
9. upon roilipi,ctlan Of icon alteration operixtions or expiraflou Of 111,11 pe-imilt, an ii7spection will bo
irtade by'tho City of the prcuiiscs acid adjoining sti-ccts, Any damage found to have been Caused by
opetflftlt, it a Carr cted by the appliclint ul)dii nolltlentlon by the City.
�---�� ....r Tia to,
It�:a s
P1ro e' t MW 'DatodA.+_�inrw.
�' Y Fier y Sviricht! t3
PrQP011Y 0 Wner's Signatt�r��
T;
%ceori menti,• d for A
Approved By:
Tj'F,RMIT EX1''lti.rl'1`1Uh1
rov^vf C.over
Mite:
Date:
Date: A93�
Receipt #
Fee: $
CITY OF FRIDILEY
Effective 5/1/88 �; j` 43
1
Date: 2q Tel
LAW ALERATION PERMIT ! 3 d6
APPLICAM Tel. # �f •��
Address `(ano 44-z{-
NAI► err . FiR CC QVJ . Tel. # � — ys�20
Address SI5.-x\ Cjmr Lo•K-�.
Address
IBGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Lot _/may _ Block _t2 I Addition -To,%nsbcu c k U%'11—
DESCRIPTION
%1
DESCRIPTION OF LAM ALTERATION
Value cf work: S �^ ^: h^O`\ StartingDate: �Q^"Q �`
Completion Date:
Source and Composition of Fill
PURPOSE OF LAND ALTERATION
Page 1 of 4
S
A
Stipulations Continued
5. - Any explosives used must be done so in accordance with Chapter 212,
subsections 212.07.5A, .54 .5C1, .5D, and .5F. of the Fridley City Code and
any other applicable standards, e. g. Federal. State, Industrial, eta
6. At the end of each season's operations and no later than the last day of
December each year, the site is to be left in a neat and orderly condition,
with maximum slopes of 2:1 with no overhang or vertical banks and with a level
bottom.
7. On the Friday of each work week, or when required by the City, material from
this operation that is found to exist on City streets shall be cleaned to the
City's satisfaction by the applicant.
8. Upon completion of land alteration operations, the land must be left according
to the plans and contours sdinitted with this application and planteu wit.ii
suitable vegetation to prevent erosion.
9. Upon completion of land alteration operations or expiration of this permit, an
inspection will be made by the City of the premises and adjoining streets.
Any damage found to have been caused by these operations will be corrected by
the applicant upon notification by the City.
_ Date:
'cant's tore
I T Date
Property 04Ler's Signature���
Date:
Property Owner's Signature
FOR CITY USE ONLY.
Recommended for Approval By: -Date
Approved By: Date:
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
Page 3 of 4
RECEIPT Effective 5/1/88 % 43
Date:- 1/2q JTC
(moi E 9, o Jridley
6431 University Ave. N.E. Tel. 571-3450
Fridley, Minnesota 55432 t3oG
v I Tel.. #
RECEIVED OF
ri a.tc�,c� •.�c���y -
ADDRESS Tel. #
FOR_.__�a ....�._s__.__-.._._.... _
FUND DPT/DIV ACCOUNT AMOUNT GLF PROJ
a� 3 00 0d
cS
Cd�^Q 1�'1'pdC
brnpletion Date:
RICHARD D. PRIBYL M
Treasurer
By _
19 No. 32179
FLATPAKIT ® MOORE BUSINESS FORMS. INC.. - N
I
��� 50� �cQ� x
Paqe 1 of
t
FRIDLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JANUARY 4 1993 PAGE 11
There being no further nominations, the nominations were closed y
Mayor Nee and an unanimous ballot was cast for the appointme of
Councilwoman Jorgenson as Representative and Councilman Sc eider
as Alternate to School Districts #13 and #14.
School District 416 Representative:
MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to nominate C ncilman Billings
as Representative and Councilman Schneider a Alternate.
There being no further nominations, th ominations were closed by
Mayor Nee and an unanimous ballot w cast for the appointment of
Councilman Billings as Representative and Councilman Schneider as
Alternate to School District #16..
League of Minnesota Cities:
MOTION by Councilman Billi s to nominate Councilman Fitzpatrick
as, Representative and Co Gilman Schneider as Alternate.
There being no furt r nominations, the nominations were closed by
Mayor Nee and an animous ballot was cast for the reappointment.
of Councilman itzpatrick as Representative 'and Councilman
Schneider as Al ernate to the League of Minnesota Cities.
011H
MOTION b Councilman Schneider to nominate William Hunt, Assistant
to th City Manager.
Th e being no further nominations, the nominations were closed by
yor Nee and an unanimous ballot was cast for the reappointment
of William Hunt to the North Metro Convention & Tourism Bureau.
8. 'APPROVAL OF DISPOSITION OF TAX FORFEIT PROPERTIES IN THE CITY
OF FRIDLEY•
Mr. Burns, City Manager, stated that the Council has received a
recommendation to sell tax forfeit properties within the City. He
stated it is requested that the original recommendation be changed
and that properties 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37 be sold, but to
tieZ. minate properties 38, 39_,-_ 40 an 41 from this sale; as the City
wishes to• evaluate their use of the properties for public purposes.
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to approve the disposition of tax
forfeit properties identified as Nos. 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37.
Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Seconded by Councilwoman
Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all voting aye, Mayor Nee declared
the motion carried unanimously.
MOTION by Councilman, Billings to advise Anoka County that tax
forfeit properties identified as Nos. 38, 39, 40 and 41 be held to
N
be evaluated regarding their use for public `4
Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice vote,. all pvotin Purposes.
a Seconded by
declared the motion carried unanimously. g y Mayor Nee
9• RESOLUTION NO. 3-1 93 DESIGNATING DIRECTOR
DAND ALTERNATE
IRECTOR TO THE.SUSURBAN RATE AUTHORITY: E
MOTION by Councilman Schneider to adopt Resolution No. 3-199
Seconded by Councilwoman Jorgenson. Upon a voice vote, all vo ng
aye, Mayor Nee declared the motion carried unanimously. g
10. RESOLUTION NO. 4-1993 DESIGNATING AN OFFICIAL NEWSP R FOR
THE YEAR 1993:
Mr. Pribyl, Finance Director, requested that the F us
News be
designated as the City's official newspaper, and at the Star
Tribune be designated as an alternate.
MOTION by Councilwoman Jorgenson to adopt Resol on No. 4-1993.
Seconded by Councilman Schneider. Upon a voice ote, Councilwoman
Jorgenson, Councilman Schneider, Councilman F'zpatrick and Mayor
Nee voted in favor of the motion. Coun lman Billings voted
against the motion. Mayor Nee declared t e motion carried by a 4
to 1 vote..
11.
Mr. Pribyl, Finance DirectolitY's
ated that this resolution
designates Fridley State Bank as official depository and
lists those authorized to sign on behalf of the City. He
stated that the three officiahorized to sign checks are
Richard Pribyl, William Burns, and Howard Koolick.
Mr. Pribyl stated that he as reviewed the services provided by
Fridley State Bank and, at this time, it does not seem to be
beneficial for the City o solicit for banking services. He stated
that over the last ive or six years the City's activity has
actually been•a loss for the bank.
Mayor Nee asked ab ut the facsimile signatures and liability.
Mr. Pribyl stat d that this resolution has been approved in this
format for ab t twelve years and was probably provided by the
banking inst' utions. He stated that the facsimile deals with the
City's si ature name plate. He stated that it is the bank's
responsi lity to verify signatures, and if someone' forges a
signat e it is the bank's problem.
Mr. Herrick,
the
City
City
Attorney, stated that
incurs
by using the facsimile
Vs'gnature
he facsimile.,
He
some risk, but
stated that there is
it is convenient to have
a case pending where a
' ,, l,•(,cx,j Gondotr;,n'iurn No ;4.l
t �P ()Ip-2u) 61acK ForeS�
stir (; r 4 ` / Gonda
^•il ,.lOr �i5,-IGS) / / (244) (Z(♦p� — I B3) # 36 ''•f .ti r:a ':
d `� / P Q ♦ P �< * .•� •! ( 45.240) ', lI >.. •. �:i;
YJ
L u
J a { •1
.
^Pz7 1+ �_') /NNSBf7t/CK V/LLAGES '--•-�
PND ADLYT/ON �tJ , :•" ~�
t�:;,.:..,,:
! J '� ' ' I•i � .,'• is �� i � y. � y
a S• 181-19 ♦ ' a -- 4 IL
- xy
cc
4
Jf yJ j/' •... R .l1 .I f�•
iQIV_• ,ff� '.': l•..; %'.-T'ir _.<
,.A--�\•:�� ._'H�=•fiIOftTH �+�-f�NSBRI�Ci��� t
�i''�� .M �..!!/. L•I-.. ,v/Is :/Fr Ir A/'N'dl.' �,. .ifi. : rJ �{:, . • 3
TCA y �� �.a/ ... � �, r••. r 1 riff :� a i ilii . � •%�y`� rs '�'� i�r:.�a.•.
,t ° rK) /C ` � • +i � � •,, 1 yJ� ,,� � �) .. .' ,-�y"':;•f���,�y�a:
t V Fe•
LTi 1 ;' da) `+ ,� ~Y •� a�''� • 1 ��4 � � � � � O . :t�!'•`-"ft`.�1`'"S`.''�*.,rr::
G ' t ! •fir - Ida r,•.t: ' .IL
1>3 (90• s) y�� .;^N
�I t• / � . '.(' ,:iS�ti� i' � . C12 41071+; .r. ; � i�7,. • •• i.�r• �.
1 2/ bt•/)! + r ) •7Y7°' 1 Y IK'' �',,ii11 / . y•` [I;iP.•. va.!, :i : b.+,,:
� .. J1� ) itr � � ° awe 4 y��' t / •Y»: �'a' t
G v l,J , Y � ss� �� �(S'r)I rr:-� !r•l ��94Ar)t J� .,G: •.�+.7:�r ;, ..
i •, .\:� _<lrfs/•i� y�..t:.K J •. `i J � 1 h/ 2 1 � ;• ... .
Nq
/N BR t
�/ (3+J (191-ts) a° y�• />r �}t. �-7 c 6 • 1 � (13d•1'M)•�>...-TJC�/Yy:,/•• 33/"
:i` w/
o �• F �'8 7 6 1 ?. �(s,)A f•( O
A N MA
/�� ,, Lrr i (r A ``• n7 O _Gs .`,' -Y«•'J.'.'."—� o)r+-~--pix. 'r�'C: .�,, L:.'.•�'�'i%:`a'
�`� It '�•
'/
(v ? ��.. 0918 r (/.4i;6•:.: _ - 103 • / ?•- ���,�;L,j;,1(,�'tY,:,.+Lc(.
-•f4_ ' /..: `�•' i(i4J J .' *''a :Yi�'7•; •'/i1•:a i�i,.
k♦ b� 6 J LOf / _ (G{i��i) R ( 33) m« vu• :i':.rJ ri'r(V +
r ., : .e L T .} Cf4•-47j t {yy�� 4 / ••��j':r"!=: �'te:�i':'
pVj ..: sY lY .r, 1 : — ,..•. a•- •- . < �' � •. .: `r '. t � � � P ". � ♦ 'L .tU ii• '!s^'.
9918 P6 P1 PIS PJ OOTLOT A • ,j•(. 4C�•Gi) x. �.- '... •�•'•:!„
(34f1�p.Y
.. mlv�
ca?)a gl (9'07 < P �,C,t,•ibt�. - f/.✓ .....'•i l` tti •••ri..r`• �.
%
O
"°'f-'?dor Y111w l8O(dp... `vC' '(Ja3.lSJ) 14�/��\+ M•' i ��`�N .'•~•^ I;
'':1i:r� .. �� ^ ii )' .. ! ,t' � j ,�� 1 t r4n�) . ! ��� .1 J .•. ='•I;� �i:
x: ...C,.� ; c.t.�,. ,y r.. ,•Ua/ : 1. ,6y�bi 70 i. si,td���g �^^ ZI"•, ,; •� 47y.��,. • tf:�°.k• 'J{
i 1
.c•l ,• ,rr�> - I 4d I6 1i ���" + "i , } , M7
.ae.•_ •i a t. he) a • F G.t'/(•w�
(119
' -gyp, i. '!
... !..'��ar ~ �.� Ylf:t `ti ,;lfl//-- f .i U� • •_i�'��3�,.g41)r?7 ! , ')a,.�t.:,'�1
tWv
• -` ��`z� __moi; .. •� i _. .#' 37
8J
IN
DATE:
TO: -
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Background
/, ?, 3, /--1 J_� L
Community Development Department
PLANNING DIVISION
City of Fridley
April 4, 1994 l
William Burns City Manager
er
✓Barbara Dacy, Community Development Director
Tax Forfeit Property and Innsbruck Townhome
On January 4, 1993, the City Council asked staff to investigate
whether or not the vacant townhome four-plex lot in the Innsbruck
development would be a potential site for a hospice for Tamarisk.
We asked Marge Brickner and Gretchen Hansen to evaluate this
site. They advised us that they did not want to pursue this
location because it was too small. As a consequence, when Anoka
County asked the City to identify whether a public use was
proposed for this property, we advised them that there is to be
no public purpose for this property.
Current Request
We have been contacted by John Paggen to construct a townhome
within the platted lot dimensions on the property. We have not
seen the building plans yet, but we are in the process of
researching the original Innsbruck Townhome requirements and will
be meeting with him in the near future to evaluate his request.
No action is needed by the City Council; I wanted to follow-up on
this, however, since I do not believe I advised you in writing
regarding Tamarisk's opinion on this property. Should you have
any questions, please feel free to contact me.
BD/dn
M-94-187
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
PROPOSED FOURPLEB OR DUPLEX
WEST BAVARIAN PASS AND TRAPP COURT
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
GME PROJECT NO. 4749
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
PROPOSED FOURPLEX OR DUPLEX
WEST BAVARIAN PASS AND TRAPP COURT
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
GME PROJECT NO. 4749
Copyright, 1994 - GME Consultants, Inc.
a wnnaus Tw.ira uaw
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
14000 21 st Ave. No./ Minneapolis, MN 55447
Phone (612)559-1859 / Fax (612)559-0720
August 4, 1994
Mr. John Paggen
Roberts Residential Remodeling _
13114 Ottawa Court
Savage, Minnesota 55378 GME Project No./4749
RE: Report of geotechnical exploration for the proposed fourplex or
duplex at West Bavarian Pass and Trapp Court in Fridley, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Paggen:
We are pleased to submit the results of our subsurface exploration and
geotechnical engineering review for this project. Submittal of this report
concludes the scope of work defined in our written quotation dated July 12,
1994.
We appreciate the opportunity to work on this project with you. If there
are any questions about our recommendations, please call me at 559-1859.
Coordination of our field services during the construction phase of this
project may be arranged through me or Mr. Steve Ruesink, P.E. at the same
phone number.
Sincerely,
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
r
Mervyn Mi ess, P.E.
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
MM: of
WILLIAM C. KWASNY, P.E. THOMAS PAUL VENEMA, P.E. WILLIAM E. BLOEMENDAL, P.E.
GREGORY R. REUTER, P.E. WYATT A. GUTZKE, P.E. MERVYN MINDESS, P.E.
MARK D. MILLSOP SANDRA J. FORREST STEVEN J. RUESINK, P.E.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROPOSED FOURPLEX OR DUPLEX
WEST BAVARIAN PASS AND TRAPP COURT
FRIDLEY, MINNESOTA
GME PROJECT NO. 4749
Section Page
ASFE Notes Regarding Geotechnical Engineering Reports
Introduction 1
Project Information 1
Scope of Services 2
Exploration Procedure 3
Soil Sampling 3
Soil Classification 4
Site Conditions 5
Site and Geology 5
Subsurface Conditions 6
Soil Conditions 6
Groundwater Conditions 7
Engineering Review and Recommendations 8
Discussion 8
Foundation Considerations 9
Foundation Recommendations 10
Ground Supported Floor Slab of Residential Structure 12
Foundation Wall Backfill 12
Free Standing Garage Structure 13
Construction Considerations 14
Winter Construction 15
Construction Safety 15
Field Observation and Testing 16
Standard of Care 17
Concluding Comments 17
Appendix
nye nnunu@ Ar mw
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ABOUT YOUR
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
More construction problems are caused by site subsurface
conditions than any other factor. As troublesome as sub-
surface problems can be, their frequency and extent have
been lessened considerably in recent years, thanks to the
Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE).
When ASFE was founded in 1969, subsurface problems
were frequently being resolved through lawsuits. In fact,
the situation had grown to such alarming proportions that
consulting geotechnical engineers had the worst profes-
sional liability record of all design professionals. By 1980,
ASFE-member consulting soil and foundation engineers had the best
professional liability record. This dramatic turn -about can be
attributed directly to client acceptance of problem -solving
programs and materials developed by ASFE for its mem-
bers' application. This acceptance was gained because clients
perceived the ASFE approach to be in their own best interests.
Disputes benefit only those who earn their living from
others' disagreements.
The following suggestions and observations are offered to
help you reduce the geotechnical -related delays, cost -over-
runs and other costly headaches that can occur during a
construction project.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF
PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsurface
exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique set of
project -specific factors. These typically include: the general
nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration;
the location of the structure on the site and its orientation;
physical concomitants such as access roads, parking lots,
and underground utilities, and the level of additional risk
which the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed
upon the exploratory program. To help avoid costly prob-
lems, consult the geotechnical engineer to determine how
any factors which change subsequent to the date of his
report may affect his recommendations.
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates
otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not be used:
• When the nature of the proposed structure is
changed, for example, if an office building will be
erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refriger-
ated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrig-
erated one;
• when the size or configuration of the proposed
structure is altered;
• when the location or orientation of the proposed
structure is modified;
• when there is a change of ownership, or
• for application to an adjacent site.
Ageotechnical engineer cannot accept responsibility for problems which
may develop if he is not consulted after factors considered in his report's
development have changed.
MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" ARE
PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions
only at those points where samples are taken, when they
are taken. Data derived through sampling and subsequent
laboratory testing are extrapolated by the geotechnical
engineer who then renders an opinion about overall sub-
surface conditions, their likely reaction to proposed con-
struction activity, and appropriate foundation design. Even
under optimal circumstances actual conditions may differ
from those opined to exist, because no geotechnical en-
gineer, no matter how qualified, and no subsurface explo-
ration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal
what is hidden by earth, rock and time. For example, the
actual interface between materials may be far more
gradual or abrupt than the report indicates, and actual
conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predic-
tions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can
be taken to help minimize their impact. For this reason, most
experienced owners retain their geotechnical consultant through the
construction stage, to identify variances, conduct additional
tests which may be needed, and to recommend solutions
to problems encountered on site.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN
CHANGE
Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly -
changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engineer-
ing report is based on conditions which existed at the time
of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be
based on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have
been affected by time. Speak with the geotechnical consultant
to learn if additional tests are advisable before construc-
tion starts.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and
natural events such as floods, earthquakes or groundwater
fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and,
thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report.
The geotechnical engineer should be kept apprised of any
such events, and should be consulted to determine if
additional tests are necessary.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS SUBJECT TO
MISINTERPRETATION
Costly problems can occur when other design profession-
als develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a
geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid these prob-
lems, the geotechnical engineer should be retained to work
with other appropriate design professionals to explain
relevant geotechnical findings and to review the adequacy
of their plans and specifications relative to geotechnical
issues.
BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE
SEPARATED FROM THE ENGINEERING
REPORT
Final boring logs are developed by the geotechnical en-
gineer based upon his interpretation of field logs (assem-
bled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation of field
samples. Only final boring logs customarily are included in
geotechnical engineering reports. These logs should not under
any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or
other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors
or omissions in the transfer process. Although photo-
graphic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does
nothing to minimize the possibility of contractors misin-
terpretating the logs during bid preparation. When this
occurs, delays, disputes and unanticipated costs are the
all -too -frequent result.
To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpretation,
give contractors ready access to: the complete geotechnical engineering
report. Those who do not provide such access may proceed
under the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming
responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information
always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing
the best available information to contractors helps prevent
costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes
which aggravate them to disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES
CLOSELY
Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on
judgement and opinion, it is far less exact than other
design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly
unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical
consultants. 7b help prevent this problem, geotechnical
engineers have developed model clauses for use in written
transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses designed to
foist the geotechnical engineer's liabilities onto someone
else. Rather, they are definitive clauses which identify
where the geotechnical engineer's responsibilities begin
and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their
individual responsibilities and take appropriate action.
Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your
geotechnical engineering report, and you are encouraged
to read them closely. Your geotechnical engineer will be
pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions.
OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO
REDUCE RISK
Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to
discuss other techniques which can be employed to miti-
gate risk. In addition, the Association of Soil and Founda-
tion Engineers has developed a variety of materials which
may be beneficial. Contact ASFE for a complimentary copy
of its publications directory.
Published by
ASSOCIATION OF SOIL AND FOUNDATION ENGINEERS
8811 Colesville Road/Suite G106
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
301/565-2733
In accordance with the acceptance of our written proposal dated
July 12, 1994, by Mr. John Paggen, we have performed a subsurface
exploration and geotechnical engineering review for this project. This
report presents our findings, evaluations, and recommendations.
PROJECT INFORMATION
It was originally planned to build a fourplex building with attached
garages, on a sloping site, between two existing buildings. After the
results of our borings were evaluated and were explained to the
developers and purchasers, we understand that the building plan was
modified to consist of a duplex structure at the rear or easterly side
of the property, with a free-standing garage at the front of the lot,
adjacent to West Bavarian Pass.
The duplex structure would probably have a regular depth basement,
masonry bearing walls to first floor level, with wood frame
construction above. Structural loads on the footings of such a
building are typically 1.5 to 2.5 kips per lineal foot on the perimeter
bearing walls, and 35 to 55 kips on interior columns. The
free-standing garage will be very lightly loaded, and may be built on
a thickened -edge slab foundation. Design grades have not yet been
MM. �MnuM Ai Mw
I
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 2 August 4, 1994
established, but there could be a few feet to up to 7 or 8 feet of cut
below present grade to form the basement of the duplex. The
free-standing garage structure would be built close to present grade at
the front of the lot.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
As per our written proposal, our work scope for this project was as
follows:
1. Explore the subsurface conditions within the originally
proposed fourplex building pad by means of six standard
penetration borings extending to depths of 15 to 25 feet, for
a total of 125 lineal feet of drilling. Actually, the poor
soil conditions encountered required that we extend the holes
deeper, to depths of 25 to 41 feet, and we drilled 199 lineal
feet.
2. Perform some routine laboratory tests on selected samples
obtained from the exploration, to assist us in classifying
the soils and characterizing their physical and engineering
properties.
3. Prepare a geotechnical engineering report, including logs of
the test borings, a site plan showing the test hole
locations, and our engineering opinions and recommendations
regarding:
A. Recommended soil correction required to prepare the
building pad for construction.
B. Recommended foundation type.
C. Allowable soil bearing pressure for footing design.
D. Estimates of foundation settlements under the applied
new loads.
E. Recommendations for the floor subgrade preparation, and
our opinion regarding the advisability of installing a
vapor barrier beneath the basement floor slabs.
6M6 MUMULTAUTIQ_ Iwe.
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749
3
August 4, 1994
F. Recommended lateral earth pressures for use in designing
the subgrade walls, and our recommendations for
subdrainage of these walls.
H. Other items which should be considered, including
unusual construction conditions, need for dewatering,
precautions for construction so close to the existing
adjacent buildings, and special foundation design
features.
EXPLORATION PROCEDURE
The boring locations were staked by our drill crew, measuring from the
street and from the adjacent buildings, and using dimensions obtained
from the site plan you provided to us. Some survey stakes were also
installed by your project land surveyor, but did not include all of the
boring locations. The borings were drilled at the approximate
locations shown on the enclosed site plan. The field work was
performed on July 19, 1994, using an all -terrain CME -550 drill rig.
Surface elevations at the borings were obtained by our drill crew, with
reference to the garage floor slab of the adjacent unit at 5607 West
Bavarian Pass. The elevation of this slab was shown to be 967.47 feet
NGVD, on the drawing you provided to us.
Soil Sampling
The borings were advanced with 4-1/4 inch I.D. x 8 inch O.D. continuous
flight, hollow stem augers fitted with a center plug. Soil sampling
was performed in advance of the auger tip at 2 to 5 foot intervals of
ams: anwauuramra src
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 4 August 4, 1994
depth, in accordance with ASTM: D 1586, commonly referred to as the
Standard Penetration Test. The N -value obtained from this test is an
index of the relative density of cohesionless soils and the consistency
of cohesive soils.
Observations for groundwater levels in the borings were made while
drilling and after completion. The borings were backfilled with cement
grout after the final water level observations were made.
soil classification
As the samples were obtained in the field, they were preliminarily
classified by the field crew. Representative portions of all samples
were sealed in jars and returned to the laboratory for further
examination and classification by an Engineer, based on the Unified
Soil Classification System, and generally in accordance with
ASTM: D 2487 and D 2488. Logs of the borings indicate the depths and
identification of the various strata, the N -values, water level
information, and pertinent information regarding the method of
maintaining and advancing the drill holes, are included in the
Appendix. Charts illustrating the soil classification procedure and
the descriptive terminology and symbols used on the boring logs are
also included.
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 5 August 4, 1994
The soil samples obtained in the borings will be kept for a period of
one month from the date of this report. The samples will then be
disposed of, unless we are contacted and directed to do otherwise.
SITE CONDITIONS
Site and Geolo
This site was formerly low-lying poorly drained land in which some
post -glacial organic soils developed. The basic naturally -occurring
soil type below the organics is a clayey glacial till, underlain at
depth by a sand formation.
At some time after 1976, possibly in 1977, a partial excavation was
made at this lot for a different building plan than the one being
presently considered, some fill was placed and a surcharge or pre -load
operation attempted. We do no know precise details of that operation,
although a remnant of one of the settlement monitoring plates remains.
Some fill was also added to this lot, during the development of the
Innsbruck Village Subdivision.
The maximum difference in elevation among our six borings was about 13
feet, between the high point at the rear, central portion of the lot,
and the low point adjacent to the street.
rami. nnnum rawra ore
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 6 August 4, 1994
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface conditions encountered at the boring locations are shown
on the boring logs in the Appendix. The logs also indicate the Unified
Soil Classifications of the soil types encountered. The soil
conditions have been established at our specific test hole locations
only. variations in the soil stratigraphy are likely to occur between
and around the borings, the nature and extent of which would not become
evident until exposed by construction excavation. Interpolation or
extrapolation of the results is not warranted.
Soil Conditions
All six of our soil borings encountered fill, which varied in thickness
from 13-1/2 feet at boring F, to a maximum of 29 feet at borings A and
C. The fill was a non-uniform mixture of sandy clay and sandy silt
with random seams or lenses of fine to medium sand and silty sand. The
fill appears to have been only surface compacted. Standard Penetration
N -values in the fill varied from 21 to 7 at its upper surface, and from
11 to 2 in the major lower portion. Most of the fill was loose or soft
in consistency. It is considered to be still potentially compressible.
Remnants of the post -glacial organic soils were found below the fill at
five of our six boring locations. This material was not present at
boring F, in the southeasterly corner of the property. The
post -glacial organic soils varied from 5 to 10 feet in thickness, and
n ae MBQ111 VAM-M Me-
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 7 August 4, 1994
consisted mainly of organic clayey silt and organic sandy clay having
N -values of 3 to 4, and moisture contents of 17% to 43%. Our analysis
of these data is that the organic soil has already been partially
compressed by the weight of superimposed fill, but some additional
settlement potential remains.
The major, natural, underlying, non-organic soil type at this site was
a dark gray sandy clay glacial till which commenced at depths of 19 to
35 feet below present grade at five of the six boring locations. The
uppermost several feet of this soil was soft, but the major lower
portion is believed to be stiff to very stiff in consistency. This
soil type is considered adequate for support of light building loads.
At boring F only, the 13-1/2 feet of fill was underlain by
reddish -brown sandy silt and silty sand in a medium dense condition.
Groundwater Conditions
Free groundwater was observed in only two of our six borings, during
our relatively short period of observation. The groundwater was noted
in borings A and C, at depths of 11.5 and 29.4 feet, respectively,
corresponding to elevations 952.1 and 939.3 feet. Boring B extended to
36 foot depth or elevation 930.3 feet, and did not encounter
groundwater during our short period of observation.
nue r Walld VA a &MA
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 8 August 4, 1994
Moore Lake is located approximately one mile west of this site and has
an average summer water elevation of 874 feet. Long Lake is about one
mile east of this site and has an average water elevation of 865 feet.
Our analysis of these data is that the groundwater observed in our
borings represents a localized perched condition. Perched groundwater
of this type can vary considerably in elevation, depending on
variations in precipitation, runoff, and adjacent land use.
ENGINEERING REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The engineering recommendations made in this report are based on our
understanding of the project as described in the section titled
"Project Information". The recommendations are necessarily preliminary
in nature, since a definite building plan and floor elevation for the
modified design have not yet been established. When the nature,
design, and floor elevation of the building have been designed, the
opinions and recommendations in this report should be reviewed and the
recommendations of this report modified or verified in writing, for
that specific building plan.
Discussion
Based on our interpretation of the soil boring data, it is our opinion
that the previous excavation/surcharge operation has not been
successful, and that this site is not suitable for construction on
conventional footing foundations. A building at this site should
AIME EnMAULTAMTA INC.
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 9 August 4, 1994
either be supported on long cast -in-place concrete ("augercast") piles,
or some additional surcharge should be done, along with a special
foundation design, to enable the building to be supported on footings.
Some site preparation is also required in order to improve the existing
soils and make them suitable for support of floor slabs.
Foundation Considerations
In our opinion, the use of driven piles would not be suitable at this
site, because of proximity to the adjacent structures. The vibrations
generated by the pile driving could potentially damage the adjacent
structures on the north and south sides of this lot, and the fine
diesel spray emitted by the pile -driving hammer could also damage the
finish on those buildings. Thus, if deep foundations were to be used,
we would recommend that they be augered, cast -in-place concrete piles.
We understand from you that these would be too expensive for a project
of the type proposed, and thus we will not consider them in greater
detail at this time.
It would be possible to construct a residential building on this site
using footings, if the following conditions are met:
A. The ground -supported floor slab of the residential structure
should be lower than present grade.
6ME Cl NSUILTAMI M_ IMC
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 10 August 4, 1994
B. A 5 to 7 foot soil surcharge having a unit weight of at least
120 pounds per cubic foot should be placed over the existing
soil within the entire proposed building footprint plus a 5
foot wide perimeter strip, and left in place for a period of
approximately nine months.
C. After the surcharge is removed and the site excavated to
proposed floor level, a 3 foot subcut should be made below
f]oor I PVPI, and re -filled with controlled compacted granular
fill.
D. The building could then be supported on lightly loaded
footings, and the subgrade foundation walls should be
cast -in-place concrete walls which are adequately reinforced
and dowelled to the footings, to create an inverted T -beam.
E. The Developer/Owner should be willing to accept somewhat
higher settlements than are usual for house construction.
If the above conditions are met, it is our opinion that a structure
could be supported on footings. .
Foundation Recommendations
The exact building corners plus 5 foot oversizing all around should be
staked by the project Land Surveyor. Mineral soil fill which has a
loose, dumped, unit weight of at least 120 pounds per cubic foot should
be placed over the entire building pad to a height of 7 feet above
present grade at the west side of the surcharge, and 5 feet above grade
on the east side. The side slopes of this fill should be 1.5 : 1
vertical or flatter. Settlement plates should be installed to monitor
the effects of this fill surcharge, and regular readings should be
taken to establish the settlement -time pattern.
eawc enNYuo TAYTG INP
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 11 August 4, 1994
After the primary consolidation due to the weight of the surcharge has
been completed, and some secondary compression has also occurred, the
surcharge may be removed from the building pad, and a subcut made to 3
feet below design lowest floor elevation. The exposed soil at the base
of this subcut should be surface compacted with a large self-propelled
roller. The compactor should be operated in its non -vibratory mode, to
reduce noise and vibration nuisance to the occupants of the adjacent
residential structures to the north and south.
We then recommend you import clean pit -run sand fill and place it in
the subcut in 8 inch loose lifts. The fill should be compacted with
the roller operated in its static mode to achieve at least 95% of the
maximum Modified Proctor dry density, ASTM: D 1557.
The structure may then be supported on spread footing foundations which
are designed for a maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure of 1,200
pounds per square foot. The foundation walls above the footing should
be constructed of cast -in-place concrete, at least 8 inches thick, and
appropriately dowelled to the footing at no more than 24 inch spacings.
The footing and foundation wall combination should be reinforced with
top and bottom reinforcing steel, to create a rigid, inverted T -beam.
The function of this rigid T -beam design is to substantially reduce
differential settlement effects on the building.
AMC @BYAOLTAM M WC
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 12 August 4, 1994
All perimeter footings should be at least 4 feet below outside finished
grade for frost protection. Interior footings should be at least 16
inches below the top of the floor slab.
The factor of safety with regard to shear failure for the recommended
foundation design would be at least 3. Total and differential
settlements are anticipated to be about 1-1/2 inch and 3/4 inch,
respectively.
Ground Supported Floor Slab of Residential Structure
The recommended 3 foot subcut/refill• program, using well compacted
granular fill, will provide an adequate base for the floor slab. We
recommend that a vapor barrier covered with a minimum 4 inch thick sand
capillary break should be installed below the floor slab, to prevent
migration of water vapor upward to the slab. Such water vapor can
adversely affect adhesion of tile or carpet, or can cause excessive
dampness on the basement floor. _-1
Foundation Wall Backfill
The interior sides of the residential building foundation walls should
be backfilled with the imported pit -run sand fill used within the 3
foot subcut zone. This soil should be compacted with manually operated
vibrating plate compactors to achieve at least 92% of the maximum
Modified Proctor dry density. The exterior side of the foundation
MYQ M =0111 TAY Me
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 13 August 4, 1994
walls can be backfilled with non-organic, low plasticity clay or clayey
silt derived from the excavation to basement level. This material
should also be compacted into place.
ubgrade basement walls should be designed to resist an at -rest lateral
1epc
arth pressure created by an equivalent fluid having a density of 50
f ..
We recommend that an exterior, perimeter drain system be installed
around the basement. This would consist of a 4 inch diameter
Wr
perforated or slotted pipe, bedded in and surrounded by 1-1/2 inch
crushed rock. This system would drain through a hole in the wall into
_WJoa sump basket in the basement.
Free Standing Garage Structure
In the garage area, we recommend that a minimum 2 foot excavation be
made below design floor level. The exposed subsoil should be
thoroughly rolled and surface compacted. Pit -run sand fill should be
placed into this subcut and compacted to 95% of the maximum Modified
Proctor dry density. The garage may then be supported on a
thickened -edge slab foundation. The thickened edges should be designed
for a bearing pressure on the subsoil not to exceed 1,000 psf. Three
s of rigid styrofoam insulation should be installed horizontally
Iat base of thickened edge level, all around the garage structure, and
nye wnWnNu TAv mw
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 14 August 4, 1994
extending outward for a width of at least 4 feet. This should then be
covered with sand fill and pavement as appropriate.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
When the surcharge is placed, appropriate care should be taken to
prevent erosion from the surcharge pile onto the adjacent properties.
It may be necessary to erect silt fences on the north and south sides.
Compaction of subgrade or fill should be done using equipment not
operated in its vibratory mode, because this can cause severe
disturbance and/or cracking to adjacent structures. You may even
consider doing a pre -construction condition survey of the adjacent
units to the north and south, as a precautionary measure.
We anticipate that the eventual excavation to basement level and the 3
foot subcut below basement level should not encounter groundwater
infiltration. If some water does enter the excavations from surface
runoff, it should be promptly pumped out. Fill or footing concrete
should not be placed into ponded water in an attempt to displace it,
because this can result in some post -construction settlements of the
building.
We recommend that the building roof be fitted with a complete perimeter
rain gutter system. The downspouts should extent at least 5 feet from
the edge of the footings to prevent deposition of accumulated rainwater
OWE CRYR111 TSYTQ INIP
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 15 August 4, 1994
at the foundation soils. Excessive water infiltration could cause
additional post -construction settlement.
Winter Construction
If winter construction is contemplated, special precautionsshould be
followed by the contractors. If excavation starts after frost has
penetrated the soil, ripping may be required, which may result in
additional earthwork charges. Only unfrozen backfill should be used,
and contractors may charge extra for importing unfrozen soil or keeping
backfill from freezing. Placement of fill and/or foundation concrete
must not be permitted on frozen soil, nor should the bearing soils
under footings or slabs be allowed to freeze after concrete is placed,
because excessive post -construction settlement could occur as the
frozen soils thaw.
Construction safety
All excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part
1926, Subpart P "Excavations and Trenches". This document states that
excavation safety is solely the responsibility. of the contractor.
Reference to this OSHA requirement should be included in the job
specifications.
nuip cmmnuiT&wTn_ irc
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 16 August 4, 1994
The responsibility to provide safe working conditions on this site, for
earthwork as well as building construction, or any associated
operations, is not borne in any manner by GME Consultants, Inc.
Field Observation and Testing
On-site observation during placement of the surcharge fill should be
done by qualified personnel. We recommend that at least 4 settlement
monitoring plates should be established at the time of original
placement of the surcharge fill, and that these should be read
regularly, at three day intervals initially, followed by weekly
intervals until the surcharge fill is at least 6 weeks old, followed by
monthly intervals until the termination of the surcharge program.
These readings could be taken either by the Geotechnical Engineer or by
your project Land Surveyor.
A representative number of field density tests should be taken in all
controlled fill, to aid in judging its suitability. We suggest that at
least one density test should be performed for each 900 square feet of
floor area, for each 18 inch lift of fill. The proposed fill material
which will be imported should be submitted to a laboratory for tests to
check compliance with our recommendations.
MWO wnnnul VAMMR ime
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 17 August 4, 1994
Installation of the building foundation should also be monitored and
tested.
STANDARD OF CARE
The recommendations contained in this report represent our professional
opinions. The soil testing and geotechnical engineering services
performed for this project have been conducted in a manner consistent
with that level of skill and care ordinarily exercised by other members
of the profession currently practicing in this area under similar
budgetary and time constraints. No other warranty, expressed or
implied, is made.
Concluding Comments
It is agreed between GME Consultants, Inc., and Roberts Residential
Remodeling, that this report is furnished in strict confidence for the
exclusive use of the Client and its agents. When this report is used
by others, it is necessary that they check with GME so that they
properly interpret or apply the results or recommendations contained
herein.
This report represents our completion of this project, based on our
understanding of the scope of services. If you require additional
GME CONSULTANTS_ INC.
Mr. John Paggen
GME Project No. 4749 18 August 4, 1994
information or services, please notify us promptly, so that we may
respond and serve you better. We should be given the opportunity to
revise or update this report once you have a specific building plan
developed.
Prepared by: Mervyn Minss, P.E.
Princi al teotechni
cal Engineer
Reviewed by: Gregory R. Reuter, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
MM:GRR:ef
I hereby certify that this pian, specification,
or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly
Registered Professional Engineer under the
laws of the State of Minnesofh A
' MervyY Mindes*
Date Reg. No. 8435
rave enrow *eumaa uue_
APPENDIX
Soil Boring Location Diagram
General Notes
Soil Boring Logs
Unified Soil Classification System
Special Notes Regarding Placement of Compacted Fill Soils
awo eeraut*arra ire
GENERAL NOTES
DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:
SL
SS with Liner
WCI :
Wet Cave In
SS :
Split Spoon — 1%" I.D., 2" O.D., unless
OS
Osterberg Sampler — 3" Shelby Tube
WD
otherwise noted
HS
Hollow Stem Auger
ST
Shelby Tube — 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted
WS
Wash Sample
PA
Power Auger
FT
Fish Trail
DB
Diamond Bit — NX: BX: AX
RB
Rock Bit
AS
Auger Sample
BS
Bulk Sample
JS
Jar Sample
PM
Pressuremeter test — in situ
VS
Vane Shear
And
35-50
Standard
"N" Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling
30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon, except
where noted.
Passing #200 sieve
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENT SYMBOLS:
WL
Water Level
WCI :
Wet Cave In
DCI
Dry Cave In
WS
While Sampling
WD
While Drilling
BCR:
Before Casing Remvoal
ACR:
After Casing Removal
AB :
After Boring
Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the times indicated. In previous soils, the
indicated elevations are considered reliable ground water levels. In impervious soils, the accurate determination of ground
water elevations is not possible in even several days observation, and additional evidence of ground water elevations must be
sought.
GRADATION DESCRIPTION & TERMINOLOGY
Coarse Grained or Granular Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as:
boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are
described as: clays or clayey silts if they are cohesive, and silts if they are non -cohesive. In addition to gradation, granular
soils are defined on the basis of their relative in-place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their strength or
consistency, and their plasticity.
Major
Descriptive Term(s)
Component
(Of Components Also
Percent of
Of Sample
Size Range
Present In Sample)
Dry Weight
Boulders
Over 8 in. (200mm)
Trace
1-9
Cobbles
8 in. to 3 in.
Little
10-19
(200mm to 75mm)
Gravel
3 in. to #4 sieve
Some
20-34
(75mm to 2mm)
Sand
#4 to #200 sieve
And
35-50
(2mm to .074mm)
Silt
Passing #200 sieve
(0.074mm to 0.005mm)
Clay
Smaller than 0.005mm
CONSISTENCY OF COHESIVE SOILS:
RELATIVE DENSITY
OF GRANULAR SOILS:
Unconfined
Comp.
Strength, Ou,
tsf
Consistency
N — Blows/ft.
Relative Density
< 0.25
Very Soft
0-3
Very Loose
0.25-0.49
Soft
4-9
Loose
0.50-0.99
Medium (Firm)
10-29
Medium Dense
1.00-1.99
Stiff
30-49
Dense
2.00-3.99
Very Stiff
50-80
Very Dense
4.00-8.00
Hard
80+
Extremely Dense
> 8.00
Very Hard
GME CSN3l1LTANTS_ INC
' LOG OF BORING B- A
PROJECT
Fourplex or Duplex
SITE West Bavaria Pass & Trapp Court
Fridley, Minnesota
CLIENT
Roberts Residential Remodeling
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
Ci
Uj
a
o
m
>
Z LU
LU )-
O.
a
cn �d
LU
LU
p�
a
3
=
U
Q
H
to
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
w
F N
� F-
J
a w
to L
�y
3
m
ttJ
:)STANDARD
J
?
Z
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONSIF12
1 23 4 6
WATER
CONTENT %
PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT)
- DFSIGN bIAOR 964.0
— -10- — 20— —30— 40 — 60
SURFACE ELEVATION
963.6
ISS
6.0 1
Brown to gray SANDY CLAY WITH SILT,
trace gravel - very stiff to firm - (CL) (FILL)
21
9
4
,
16
2SS
3SS
4SS
9.0
Brown SILTY SANDY CLAY trace gravel -
firm - (CL) (FILL)
e
`
5SS
13.0
Brown SANDY CLAY, trace organics -
very stiff - (CL) (FILL)
29
'
19.0
Dark brown SANDY SILT, trace organics -
loose - moist - (ML) (FILL)
6
r
2
6SS
7SS
24.0
Dark brown CLAY, trace silt, organics -
soft - (CL-CH) (Possible Fill)
4
8ST
9SS
29.0
Gray SANDY CLAY, with thin seams of
organics, trace gravel, wood fragments -
firm - (CL) (Possible Fill)
5
toss
34.0
Gray brown CLAYEY SILT, with thin layers
of organics - soft - (ML)
4
11sS
36.0
Dark gray SANDY CLAY - firm - (CL)
5
End of boring at 36 feet
Hollow stem auger used to full depth
Borehole backfilled with grout
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
Geotal
21*t AMverm North
MnmeepoW, Memeeote 66"7
(612) 668-1868
BORING STARTED 7/19/94
W.L. Groundwater not encountered
BORING COMPLETED 7/19/94
W.L. while drillingor after casing4000
RIG CME-550 DRILLER KJB
W.L. removal
DRAWN MW APPROVED MM
11.5' 24 hour after boring
JOB # 4749 SHEET 1 Of 1
[B®ring Caved at 13.3 feet after drillin
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
T between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
I
LOG OF BORING B- B
PROJECT
Fourplex or Duplex
SITE West Bavaria Pass & Trapp Court
Fridley, Minnesota
CLIENT
Roberts Residential Remodeling
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
IW
W
_
o
Lu
2
n
z a
-j >-
a
N Q
J
us
>
J
W
3
W.--0---
2
U
iQ
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
W
F-
J
IL WU)
0 X
3
-j
to
M
?
z 1
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FTP
1 2 34 6
WATER
CONTENT %
-- •i- -
STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT)
-
10 20 30 40 6o
SURFACE ELEVATION
966.3
1SS
2.0
Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace
organics, roots - firm - (CL) (FILL)
7
( j
YY
-
DESIGNFIJOOR
966.0
2SS
6.0
e
zj
Dark brown SANDY SILTY CLAY, trace
organics, roots - firm - (CL) (FILL)
3ST
4SS
9.0
Dark brown medium SAND WITH SILT,
trace gravel, asphalt - medium dense -
moist - (SP) (FILL)
13
5SS
14.014
20
Brown medium CLAYEY SAND, trace
gravel - medium dense - moist - (SC) (FILL)
6SS
19.01
Gray SANDY CLAY, trace organics, - stiff
- (CL) (FILL)
1
9
I
+
7SS
24.0
Dark brown SILTY CLAY - firm - (CL)
(Possible Fill)
7
r
r
r
8SS
29.0
Gray brown CLAYEY SILT, with thin layers
of organics - soft - (ML)
3
I
3
9SS
36.0
Gray SILTY CLAY WITH SAND, trace
gravel - soft - (CL)
316
4
I
1
4
10SS
End of boring at 36 feet
Hollow stem auger used to full depth
Borehole backfilled with grout
WATER
LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
,14 o 21genus North Environmen
M��e. M wou 66447
(6121668.1969
BORING STARTED 7/19/94
W.L. Groundwater not encountered
BORING COMPLETED 7/19/94
W.L. while drillingor after casingst
RIC' CME-550 DRILLER KJB
W.L. removal
DRAWN MW APPROVED MM
JOB u 4749 SHEET 1 of 1
Boring Caved at 8.0 feet after au er
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
removal
' LOG OF BORING B- C
PROJECT
Fourplex or Duplex
SITE West Bavaria Pass & Trapp Court
Fridley, Minnesota
CLIENT
Roberts Residential Remodeling
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
LU
LL
=
W
O
mDESCRIPTION
>
Z LU a
-us j H
CL
Q z�z
(n Q
>
LU
W
Q
3
W
U
=
U
N
OF MATERIAL
w
~ rn
J
a w
to Cc
3
m
w
>
Z
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/F12
1 2 3 4 6
WATER
CONTENT %
-- �--
STANDARD PENETRATION (SLOWS/FOOT)
-
10 20 30 40 60
SURFACE ELEVATION
968.7
1 SS
2.0
Brown SANDY SILT, with crushed rock -
medium dense - moist - (ML) (FILL)
2SS
6.0
s
5
—•
;
DESIGN
FLOOR
966.0
Dark brown CLAYEY SILT, trace organics -
stiff to firm - (ML) (FILL)
3SS
4SS
13.0
Brown to gray brown SILTY SANDY
CLAY, trace organics, gravel - stiff to soft
- (CL) (FILL)
9
3
5SS
6SS
20.5
Brown SANDY CLAY WITH SILT, trace
gravel - firm to stiff - (CL) (FILL)
7
> >
I
ti
s
7SS
29.0
Red brown SILTY SAND, trace clay, gravel
- damp - (SM) (FILL)
2
,
I
s
25
0
Gray SILTY CLAY, with seams of silty
sandm trace organics, gravel - soft - (CL)
(FILL)
8SS
9SS
34.0
Gray SILT SANDY CLAY, with sandy clay
lenses, trace gravel - soft - (CL)
4
Z25:10SS35.0
10SS
39.0
Dark brown SILTY WITH ORGANICS -
(ML-OL)
'
s
'
Gray CLAYEY SILT - firm - (ML)
11SS
41.0
Gray SILTY SAND, trace gravel - very
loose - wet - (SM)
4
End of boring at 41 feet
Hollow stem auger used to full depth
Borehole backfilled with grout
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
MOOD A nu Noft rth "'°"°'°"�`'
Minneapolis, Minnesota 66447
(612) 669-1669
BORING STARTED 7/19/94
W.L. ® 35.5 feet while sampling
BORING COMPLETED 7/19194
W.L.136 feet before casingremoval
RIG CME-550 DRILLER KJB
W.L. 29.4' 24 hours after boring
DRAWN MW APPROVED MM
JOB u 4749 SHEET 1 of 1
33.4 feet after auger removal
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
LOG OF BORING B- D
PROJECT
Fourplex or Duplex
SITE West Elavaria Pass & Trapp Court
Fridley, Minnesota
CLIENT
Roberts Residential Remodeling
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
LU
W
=
LU
LU
M >
Z a
a
Q z�z
(n Q
J
LU
UA
W
Q
3
U.
LU
m
z
VLL.
N
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
w
►- rn
J
fA 0:
3
w
>
Z
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TON&Tf
1 2 3 4 6
WATER
CONTENT %
-- 1--
STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT)
- - -
10 20 3040 60
SURFACE ELEVATIONW
9]0,]
igg
3.0.loose
Brown SILT, trace wood, roots, gravel -
- damp - (ML) (FILL)
B
DESIGN
FLOOR
968.9
2SS
4.0
Dark brown SANDY SILTY CLAY, trace
organics, - firm - (CL) (FILL)
B
•
3SS
6.0
4
a
�
Dark brown to brown SILTY CLAY WITH
ORGANICS, trace sand - soft - (CL-OL)
(FILL)
4SS
23.0
3
3
s
,
i
15
5SS
Brown SILTY SANDY CLAY, trace wood,
gravel - stiff to soft - (CL) (FILL)
6SS
7SS
8SS
33.0
Gray SANDY CLAY, trace silt, gravel,
organic pockets - soft - (CL)
4
40
i
�,
t
141)
9ss
oss
35.0
Gray brown SANDY SILTY CLAY, trace
gravel, organics - firm - (CL)
e
18
+
End of boring at 35 feet
Hollow stem auger used to full depth
Borehole backfilled with grout
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
GME CONSULTANTS. INC.
ntal
AvenueN � �
MinneapoGa.Minnesota 66447
(812) 669-1868
BORING STARTED 7/19/94
W.L. Groundwater not encountered
BORING COMPLETED 7/19/94
W.L. while drillingor after casing1�
RIG CME-550 DRILLER KJB
W.L. removal
DRAWN MW APPROVED MM
JOB x 4749 SHEET 1 of 1
Boring caved at 14.3 feet after auger
I
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
removal
' LOG OF BORING B- E
PROJECT
Fourplex or Duplex
SITE West Bavaria Pass & Trapp Court
Fridley, Minnesota
CLIENT
Roberts Residential Remodeling
ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
LU
�
_
,a
o
LU
>
Z a
U
a
Q
to
>
J
N
w
Q
3
W
LU
LL.
LU
U)975.9
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
w
H
a w
U)
_
3
m
W
J
>
z
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONSIF12
1 2 3 4 6
WATER
CONTENT %
__.•-_.
STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT)
10 20 30 40 so
SURFACE ELEVATION
ISS
5.0
Brown SILT WITH ORGANICS, trace
gravel, roots - loose - (ML-OL) (FILL)
8
7
j
2SS
3SS
9.0
Dark brown SILTY CLAY WITH
ORGANICS, trace wood fragments, roots -
soft - (CL-OL) (FILL)
4
,
•
4ST
5SS
14.0
Gray SANDY SILTY CLAY, trace gravel,
organics - stiff - (CL) (Possible Fill)
iG
— '
r
1
—'
DESIGNbZAOR
—
966.0
6SS
19.0
Gray brown SANDY SILTY CLAY, trace
gravel, organics - soft - (CL)
30
I*t
7SS
25.01
Gray SILTY CLAY WITH SAND, trace
gravel - stiff to firm - (CL)
s
B
r
r
r
2
0
8SS
End of boring at 25 feet
Hollow stem auger used to full depth
Borehole backfilled with grout
WATER
LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
GooW.L. � Environmental
M7nneaPeFa,Minnesota 66447
(812) 668-1868
BORING STARTED 7/19/94
W.L. Groundwater not encountered
BORING COMPLETED 7/19/94
while drillingor after casing14400021st'A�a`N
RIG CME-550 DRILLER KJB
W.L. removal
DRAWN MW APPROVED MM
JOB # 4749 SHEET 1 of 1
Boring caved at 20.2 feet after au er
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
removal
LOG OF BORING B- F
PROJECT
Fourplex or Duplex
SITE West Bavaria Pass & Trapp Court
Fridley, Minnesota
CLIENT
Roberts Residential Remodeling
ARCHITECT -ENGINEER
LU
ii
_
w
o
m
> >LU
Z a
� F}-
a
Z
(0 Q
LU
CC
w
Q
3
w
U_
W
U
ca
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
w
J
a w
U) oc
LL
N
3
m
J
?
z
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/F12
1 2 3 4 6
WATER
CONTENT %
STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT)
- DESIGN FLOOR 968.9
®-10— zo— -30— -40-- so-
SURFACE ELEVATION
968.4
1SS
2.0
Dark brown to brown SANDY SILT, trace
gravel, organics - dry - loose - (ML) (FILL)
e
2SS
4.5
9
Red brown SILTY SAND, trace gravel -
loose - damp - (SM) (FILL)
3SS
9.0
a
7
r
•
23
Gray brown SILTY CLAY WITH SAND,
trace roots, gravel, organics - firm - (CL)
(FILL)
4SS
5SS
13.0
Brown SILTY SANDY CLAY, trace roots,
organics - soft - (CL) (FILL)
40
1*1
6SS
13.0Brown
19.5
SILTY SANDY CLAY WITH
ORGANICS, trace roots, wood fragments -
(CL -OL) (FILL)
12
1�
Red brown SANDY SILT WITH CLAY,
trace gravel - stiff - (ML)
7SS
24.0
Red brown fine SAND WITH SILT, trace
gravel - medium dense - damp - (SP -SM)
1s
95
SSS
MOO
Brown fine SAND, trace silt, gravel - loose
- damp - (SP)
e
End of boring at 26 feet
Hollow stem auger used to full depth
Borehole backfilled with grout
WATER
LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
North mental
Minneapolis, Minnesota 66447
(812) 669-1869
BORING STARTED 7/19/94
W.L. Groundwater not encountered
BORING COMPLETED 7/19/94
W.L. while samplingor after casing1�isAvennue
RIG CME -550 DRILLER KJB
W.L. removal
DRAWN MW APPROVED MM
Joe x 4749 SHEET 1 of 1
Boring caved at 21.9 feet after auger
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
I between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
removal
CLASSIFICATION OF SOILS FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES
(ASTM: D 2487 and 2488)
Major divisions Group Typical names Laboratory classification criteria
symbols
m
C;
Z
C
r
=_`
m E
c
m
C a
e- E
0
.me
c
£
0
2
MH
C
a
£
a m
e CH
E E
H D
7
ON
0
am= Pt
=m8
0
Dre (p30)2
GW
dium plasticity, gravelly clays,
C.=—greater than 4; Cc=between 1 and 3
mixtures, little or no fines
5C
Dm D10XD60
Ea e°
4C
clays of low plasticity
c
Em
C `o
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
a m
RA
V 9
GP
�
o
Q.
silty soils, elastic silts
I
$m
m a
m H S
HW
Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt
> a V : =
m C3O m�
Atterberg limits below "A"
>
O r m
c
Above "A" line with P.1.
d
$ C3 C7 m m
" o
mZ
m £
m
8
GM
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay
ga
£
of dual symbols
mixtures
N
m
c—
£ m m
u
d
Z.�
3ac
==°4'
EE
= c
G
>
:
GC
9£
m
C,=—greater than 4; Cc=—between 1 and 3
t7CL
Q
E
v
e °.'
C ami
e
a
a9
Poorly graded sands, gravelly
C = ..
o ;
02 .
Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
sands, little or no fines
o _. c
16:m =
c w
m
°
CD y � u
« n . 8 c
yam 8.w m
m c
SW
m
O`o
Atterberg limits below "A"
.o
sands, sand -silt mixtures
o t
o £ d
a$
c
CA
zone with P.I. between 4
o
=
Em
m m
a
E
t)
SP
requiring use of dual sym- `
�a
d
Atterberg limits below
bols.
C"aZ
line or P.I. greater than 7
d
y
.c
c
m m
d 8
e
SM
LD
£mm
0
C
v � o
m
ul a
SC
m
C;
Z
C
r
=_`
m E
c
m
C a
e- E
0
.me
c
£
0
2
MH
C
a
£
a m
e CH
E E
H D
7
ON
0
am= Pt
=m8
0
Inorganic slits and very fine
sands, rock flour, silty or clay-
ey fine sands or clayey silts
withsli ht lasticity 60(_____T
V P
Dre (p30)2
Well -graded gravels, gravel -sand
dium plasticity, gravelly clays,
C.=—greater than 4; Cc=between 1 and 3
mixtures, little or no fines
5C
Dm D10XD60
E v
c m
E c
4C
clays of low plasticity
c
Poorly graded gravels, gravel-
'
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
sand mixtures, little or no fines
0
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
�
o
Q.
silty soils, elastic silts
N 7
m H S
HW
Silty gravels, gravel -sand -silt
> a V : =
m C3O m�
Atterberg limits below "A"
mixtures
m 3r o
line or P.I. teas than 4
Above "A" line with P.1.
$ C3 C7 m m
" o
mZ
between 4 and 7 are border-
tine cases requiring use
Clayey gravels, gravel -sand -clay
8
Atterberg limits below "A"
of dual symbols
mixtures
m
line or P.I. greater than 7
EE
D, (D30)2
Well -graded sands, gravelly
02
8
C,=—greater than 4; Cc=—between 1 and 3
sands, little or no fines
E
v
D10 D 10XDs0
C ami
e
Poorly graded sands, gravelly
C = ..
o ;
02 .
Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
sands, little or no fines
o _. c
16:m =
c w
°
CD y � u
« n . 8 c
yam 8.w m
Silty
E c E I c
8 °m m
Atterberg limits below "A"
sands, sand -silt mixtures
o t
o £ d
line or P.I. less than 4
Limits plotting in hatched
CA
zone with P.I. between 4
9g`o«
o �EJ g
and 7 are borderline cases
m m c
°'
"A"
requiring use of dual sym- `
Clayey sands, sand -clay mix-
Atterberg limits below
bols.
tures
line or P.I. greater than 7
Inorganic slits and very fine
sands, rock flour, silty or clay-
ey fine sands or clayey silts
withsli ht lasticity 60(_____T
V P
Inorganic clays of low to me-
dium plasticity, gravelly clays,
sandy clays, silty clays, lean
5C
clays
Organic slits and organic silty
4C
clays of low plasticity
c
3(
m
Inorganic silts, micaceous or
�
diatomaceous fine sandy or
Q.
silty soils, elastic silts
2C
Inorganic clays of high plas-
ticity, fat clays
Organic clays of medium to
high plasticity, organic silts
Peat and other highly organic
soli
10
7
4
0
0 10 20 30 40 5o 60 70 80 so 101
Liquid Limit
Plasticity Chart
�ttl•i•i•�
—For clas�lflcatlo� of fine-grained
soils and fine fraction of coarse-
�ttl•i•I�
—grained soils.
��f♦I
—Atterberg Limits plotting In
hatched area are borderline classi-
tltltltl•I��
fications requiring use of dual
symbols
Equation' 1 f•���
I�f•�� I���O�
I� i_itttt�ltttt��■�tttta
a
LEGEND
EXIST.
BLDG. /
#5621
32 B,, 4
22 21B4
B—A GARAGE
2
GARAGE �9A
UNIT 4 PROPOSED
BUILDING UNIT 1
GARAGE —B 20.....B—E
23 UNIT 3
UNIT 2
B—C
17A GARAGE
17 rm3XEB—
is
EXIST.
BENCHMARK: BLDG.
GARAGE FLOOR SLAB
ELEV. = 967.47
SOIL BORINGS THIS REPORT
PREVIOUS BORINGS BY OTHERS
GME CONSULTANTS. INC.
Gectechnk:d • Materids • Envirc mieMd 22
14000 00 Avenw Ti.
M6r�eapo6s. Mtmesoto 55447
tal?� 559-1859 Is -
C
APPROXIMATE
SCALE
0FEET 30'
SOL BMG LOCATION DIAGRAM
PROPOSED FOURPLE<
FRIDLEY. MN ESOTA
MM AUG. 94 GME Project No. 4749
SPECIAL NOTES ON PLACEMENT OF COMPACTED FILL SOIL
GENERAL
The placement of compacted fill for support of foundations, floor slabs, pavements, or earth structures should be
carried out by an experienced excavator with the proper equipment. The excavator must be prepared to adapt his
procedures, equipment, and materials to the type of project, to weather conditions, and the structural requirements of
the architect and engineer. Methods and materials used in summer may not be applicable in winter; fill used in dry
excavations may not be suitable in wet excavations or during periods of precipitation; proposed fill soil may require
wetting or drying for proper placement and compaction. Conditions may also vary during the course of a project or in
different areas of the site. These needs should be addressed in the project drawings and specifications.
EXCAVATION/BACKFILL BELOW THE WATER TABLE
It is common to have to excavate and replace unsuitable soils below the water table for site correction. As a general
rule of prudent construction technique, we recommend that excavation/backfill below the water table not be permitted,
unless the excavation is dewatered. Numerous problems can develop when this procedure is attempted without
dewatering.
— Inability of the equipment operators and soil technicians to
observe that all unsuitable soil/materials have been removed from
the base of the excavation.
— Inability to observe and measure that proper lateral oversizing is
provided.
— Inability to prevent or correct sloughing of excavation sidewalls,
which can result in unsuitable soils trapped within the select
backfill.
— Inability of the contractor to adequately and uniformly compact
the backfill.
— Possibility of disturbance of the suitable soils at the base of the
excavation.
The dewatering methods, normally chosen at the contractor's option, should follow prudent construction practice.
Excavations in clay can often be dewatered with sump pits and pumps; this technique would not be applicable for
excavation extending into permeable granular soil, especially for depths significantly below the water table. Dewater-
ing granular soils should normally be done with well points or wells. When dewatering is needed, we strongly
recommend that the procedures be discussed at pre-bid or pre -construction meetings. The dewatering technique
chosen by the contractor should be reviewed by the architect and engineer before construction starts; it should not be
left until excavation is underway.
The selection of proper backfill materials is important when working in dewatered excavations. Even with dewatering,
the base is usually wet and the contractor must be careful not to disturb the base. We recommend that the first lifts of
backfill be a clean medium to course grain sand with less than 5% passing the #200 sieve. The use of silty sand, clayey
sand, or cohesive/semi-cohesive soils is not recommended for such situations. The excavator should be required to
submit samples of the proposed material(s) he plans to use as backfill before the fill is hauled to the site, so that it can
be tested for suitability.
WINTER EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION
Winter earthwork presents its own range of problems which must be overcome; the situation may be complicated by
the need for dewatering discussed above.
During freezing conditions, the fill used must not be frozen when delivered to the site. It also must not be allowed to
freeze during or after compaction. Since the ability to work the soil while keeping it from freezing depends in part on
the soil type, the specifications should require the contractor to submit a sample of his proposed fill before construc-
tion starts, for laboratory testing. If the soil engineer and structural engineer determine that it is not suitable, it should
be rejected. In general, silty sand, clayey sand, and cohesive/semi-cohesive soils should not be used as fill under
freezing conditions. All frozen soil of any type should be rejected for use as compacted fill.
It is important that compacted fill be protected from freezing after it is placed. The excavator should be required to
submit a plan for protecting the soil. The plan should include details on the type and amount of material (straw,
blankets, extra loose fill, topsoil, etc.) proposed for use as frost protection. The need to protect the soil from freezing is
ongoing throughout construction and applies both before and after concrete is placed, until backfilling for final frost
protection is completed. Foundations placed on frozen soil can experience heaving and significant settlement, rota-
tion, or other movement as the soil thaws. Such movement can also occur if the soil is allowed to freeze after the
concrete is placed and then allowed to thaw. The higher the percentage of fines (clay and silt, P-200 material) in the fill,
the more critical is the need for protection from freezing.
c"C"nu0111TnwuTc purr.
MOISTURE CONTROL OF FILL
The contractor should be required to adjust the moisture content of the soil to within a narrow range near the optimum
moisture content (as defined by the applicable Proctor or AASHTO Test). In general, fill should be placed within about
2% of optimum. The need for moisture control is more critical as the percentage of fines increases. Naturally -occurring
clayey sand or cohesive/semi-cohesive soil are often much wetter than the optimum. Placing and attempting to
compact such soils to the specified density may be difficult, or not possible. Even if compacted to the specified density,
excessively wet soils may not be suitable as floor slab or pavement subgrades due to pumping under applied load. This
is especially true when wet cohesive/semi-cohesive soil is used as backfill in utility trenches under streets. Excessively
wet soil in thick fill sections may cause post -construction settlement beyond that estimated for fill placed at or near
(±2%) the optimum moisture content.
An exception to this would be low permeability soil placed as a pond liner or for a dam. Such soil should usually be
placed at 2% to 4% above the optimum moisture content, to provide for a lower insitu permeability. Also, shrinking/
swelling soils (expansive clay) should be placed at about 2% to 4% above optimum moisture to reduce the possibility of
soil expansion. Clayey silt, silt, or very silty fine sand should be placed excessively dry. Such soils can undergo
post -construction consolidation upon being wetted, even if the specified density had been achieved. This is caused by
the collapse of flocculant soil particle arrangement, and can result in settlement of buildings or slabs constructed over
the soil.
Proper controld5f fill soil moisture is the responsibility of the excavator. The excavator should evaluate the need for
wetting or drying the soils, based either on the data in the soil report, or his own site testing. If the excavator is bringing
in off-site fill, it is also his responsibility to evaluate the moisture content of the soil, and the need for wetting or drying.
We recommend that this matter be addressed in the project specifications.
CONSTRUCTION ON COMPACTED SOIL
After the select fill has been placed, compacted, and tested, it must be maintained and protected in order to properly
support structures. The suitability of compacted fill soil can be greatly diminished if it is allowed to freeze, become
saturated while unconfined (such as in footing excavations or at the surface of slab/placement subgrade), or disturbed
by construction equipment.
The responsibility for protecting the soil, or for correcting any disturbance, should be clearly defined in the specifica-
tions. Soils which become wet and soft after compaction testing do not necessarily reflect inaccurate field density
tests. Especially with non -expansive cohesive/semi-cohesive soils, saturation when unconfined can severely reduce
the shear strength while the density remains adequate. The reduced shear strength can cause footings, floor slabs, or
pavements to settle or fail under load. We strongly recommend that all pavement subgrade be test rolled (MN/DOT
Specification 2111) immediately before paving to determine if the subgrade has not been protected and soft spots have
developed.
FLOOR SLAB SUBGRADE AND UTILITY TRENCHES
This facet of construction presents special problems, especially if the slab subgrade is allowed to freeze. When the soil
thaws, it undergoes a period of temporarily lower shear strength. Floor slabs should not be cast over soil in such a
weakened or frozen condition (reference pertinent PCA and ACI publications). To do so can result in cracked and
failing slabs. The time period to heat and thaw a building may place the construction schedule and/or costs in
jeopardy. We strongly recommend that this matter be reviewed in pre-bid and pre -construction meetings.
Backfilling of utility trenches in the floor slab subgrade can be difficult. If the soil is wet, compaction to the specified
density may be. difficult, or not possible. The narrowly cut trenches may preclude the use of proper compaction
equipment. With the use of small equipment in confined areas, the contractor must place the soil in thin lifts (4 to 6
inches), with the soil at the proper moisture content. This work is typically carried out by contractors other than the
mass grading or earthwork contractor. We strongly recommend that the responsibility to carry out the compaction be
clearly detailed in the applicable section of the specifications, and reviewed with the appropriate contractor and
subcontractor.
t
Car slabEl '1676 , 91
I
$r S 81010000" E7
�t
1
Lot 4
prop
Lot 3
T45>�, �o,� �A��
Lot 2, • ��e �i`
In
Block 18 I
,... ten.
S s7 °-00'�`p
Q 00
+QQ �xt�.6l��► 'a:i 1,1,f �
.5?C b$ Car alae Fa j6�x4� q I
za.aa �y C?
Zoo
Lot 1
bullding � ���, W
OR
�!1
Lot 2
Gar slab EI Wilt
37,
Lot`,
CSS ,j
le Block 22
Scale: 1" = 20'
hereby certify that this survey, pian, or
port was prepared by me or under my direct
pervision and that I am a duly Registered
nd Surveyor under the Laws of the State
Minnesota.
Ita Reg. No. 8140
BRANDT ENGINEERING &
1.600 West 143rd Street,
Burnsville, MN 55306 - -
M
I
I
I
I
I
I
r~�
7 00
DESCRIPTION N
Lots " 1, i,'3, & 4, Block .21,
INNSBRUCK VILLAGES
Hennepin County, Minnesota
Plat bearings shown
o Denotes iron monument
Existing,,, i'ropased
VEY'1NG
Suite