Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout55000990829000_Variances_07-11-2019f=F-4t-201'^j T-7595Date Stamp ftECEiVED JUN 1 9 2019 and & RESOURCE CAROL SCHMALTZ OTTER TAIL COUNTY RECORDER/REGISTRAR OF TITLES FERGUS FALLS, MH RECORDED ON 07/17/2015 11:36 AML&R Initial THE ABOVE SPACE IS RESERVED FOR THE COUNTY RECORDER L£E: 46.00 PAGES 4 WE-L CERTIFICATED REC'D: N GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER, 540 WEST FIR, FERGUS FMa£S^'^'T^BS^ES (218) 998-8095 Otter Tail County’s Website: www.ottertailcountymn.us APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL ^bOOoOApplication Fee COMPLETE THIS APPLICATION IN INK Receipt Number Accepted By / Date (\- hrmrit DAYTIME PHONEPROPERTY OWNER MAILING ADDRESS E-MAIL ADDRESS ^->et LAKE NUMBER LAKE NAME P-\, ( ,'•> 0 SECTION \' V~rVY<^0 ^tor) 0 hrA(vC-lKfiUi nrA^. (^oH ^ m GiDLAKE CLASS TOWNSHIP i ?^ri RANGE QM^ TOWNSHIP NAME ScCLYY\b\£l? ^ E-911 ADDRESS . PARCEL NUMBER LEGAL DESCRIPTION A-__________ TYPE OF VARIANCE REQUESTED (Please Check) Cluster WECS Misc.Sewage System SubdivisionStructure Setback Structure Size SPECIFY HOW YOUR PROJECT VARIES FROM ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. CITE THE RELEVANT SECTION(S) AND OTTER TAIL COUNTY ORDINANCE(S) FROM WHICH THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR. PLEASE BE BRIEF AS THIS WILL BE USED FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION. WiA^j Urtj/p nTPid C)((Ajf\cxi^CjL ITT. 4. ‘ OTTER TAIL COUNTY ORDINANCE: SECTION OF ORDINANCE: VARIANCE REQUEST: We are proposing to construct new retaining walls on our property and a portion of 2 of the retaining walls will be in the bluff. On the NE side 29.5 ft of the retaining wall will be in the bluff and on the NW side 9 ft. of the retaining wall will be in the bluff. The required setback is 30' from the top of the bluff. We will be removing the existing boulder retaining walls on the property along with deck that over hangs the bluff and the existing firepit as well as the walkway from the firepit to the landscaping edge. The engineering company for this project is Northern Technologies Incorporated. I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SHORELAND MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE/SUBDIVISION CONTROLS ORDINANCE / SANITATION CODE / SETBACK ORDANANCE AN/OR WECS ORDINANCE OF OTTER TAIL COUNTY. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT OTHER PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED; IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTACT LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT REGARDING THIS MATTER. '■ V A A J____________________________________________________ SIG'NATURE OF PROPERTY OWNER / AGENT FOR OWNER DATE APPLICANT MUST BE PRESENT AT THE HEARING (Applicant Will Receive Notification As To The Date/Time Of Hearing)££h9/.U-b: I 3 I G I I C; OFFICE USE ONLY duL ll( ^Jb!^f.A?.Date Of Board of Adjustment Hearing Motion Time Ace Brandt - Variance Application Approved as Requested (7:05 p.m.) After consideration and discussion, Darren Newville made a motion, seconded by Douglas Larson unanimously carried to approve the proposed project as indicated in the variance application dated June 16, 2019 and as depicted on the drawing submitted with the application to construct new retaining walls and based on the Findings of Fact and Decision Form, which contains the criteria reviewed and the Board’s finding has been attached to and incorporated as an official part of the minutes which has been placed file with the Land & Resource Management Department. It was noted that this is a maintenance and improvements. The variance as approved does not directly or indirectly grant any other variances for future development. on Chairman/Otter Tail County Boafd of Adjustment Permit(s) required from Land & Resource Management X Yes (Contact Land & Resource Management) No LR Official/Date Copy of Application Mailed / E-Mailed to Applicant, Co. Assessor and the MN DNR CL 01122019-001 368,804 • Victor Lundeen Co., Printers • Fergus Falls, MN • 1-800-346-4870 Chris LeClair Director Kyle Westergaird Asst. Director OTTER TAIL COUNTY LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION WWW.CO.OTTER-TAIL.MN.USOTTER Tflil GOVERNMENT SERVICES CENTER 540 WEST FIR AVENUE FERGUS FALLS, MN 56537 218-998-8095 FAX: 218-998-8112 201Board of Adjustment Findings of Fact and Decision Applicant; Ace A. Brandt________ _____________- Address/Parcel No. 20257 S. Pelican Dr./55000990828000 Requested Variance: We are proposing to construct new retaining walls on our property and a portion of 2 of the retaining walls will be in the bluff. On the NE side 29.5 ft of the retaining wall will be in the bluff and on the NW side 9 ft. of the retaining wall will be in the bluff. The required setback is 30' from the top of the bluff. __________________________________‘ _________ We will be removing the existing boulder retaining walls on the property along with deck that over hangs the bluff and the existing firepit as well as the walkway from the firepit to the landscaping edge. The engineering company for this project is Northern Technologies Incorporated.;- Otter Tail County Ordinance: X Shoreland Mgmt. Sanitation. Subdivision. WECS Dock & Riparian Use Setback Ord. Ordinance Section Citation: III. 4. A. A variance may be granted only where the strict enforcement of county land use controls will result in a "practical difficulty". A determination that a practical difficulty exists is based upon consideration of the following criteria: The applicant identified the following practical difficulty: Upg ade the landscape to be a more native area and since we are upgrading the landscape we thought we would good to repla :e the defective boulders at the same time. Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment-Variance Question Findings 1. Is the variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control? (The board shali consider the purposes and intent of the official control). X Yes, the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control... No, the variance is NOT in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the official control... ...because: They are doing a great job with the proposed landscape by putting native plants and preventing any erosion into the lake. 2. Is the property owner proposing to use,the property in a reasonable mariner not permitted by the official control? (The board shall consider what reasonable use of the property is lost (practical difficulties) by the strict eiiforcement of the official control). X Yes, the property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner... I ■No, the property owner is NOT proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner... ...because: This is maintenance to the defective boulders/retaining wall and there is only a small portion of retaining wall in the bluff. 3. Is the need for a variance due to the circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner? (The board shall consider what circumstances are unique to the property, such as lot size, lot configuration, wetland, steep slope, shore impact zone, bluff, floodplain, floodway, etc. One or more should be stated on the record. What differentiates this parceifrom others? Does this lot have a feature that does not affect all parcels similarly?) Yes, the need for the variance is due to circumstances ijinique to the property not created by the landowner.... No, the need for the variance is NOT due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner... ...because: They are trying to stabilize the bluff area. Will the issuance of the variance maintain the essential character of the locality? (The board shall consider and state for the record why the request does or does not maintain the character of the area. Is this request similar to what others have, what are near shore conditions of neighbors, similar sized or number of structures adjacent or in area, etc.) X Yes, the issuance of the variance will maintain the essential character of the locality.... No, the issuance of the variance will NOT maintain the essential character of the locality... ...because: 4. The vegetation that is onsite and it was noted that the bank is very well vegetated. Does the need for the variance involve more than just economic considerations? (The board shall consider if economics played a role in the request. The fact that coming into compliance with the ordinance requirements may cost considerably more does not constitute a practical difficulty). Yes, the need for the variance involves motje than Just economic considerations.... No, the issuance of the variance is only for economic considerations... ...because: 5. The landscape and terrain. The Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment: APPROVES___X the requested variance.DENIES Complete and attach After-the-Fact Addendum if this is an After-The-Fact variance request. DATED: July 11. 2019 Board of Adjustment Chair The Board of Adjustment may impose conditions in the granting of variances. A condition must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. (Mitigating impervious surface with storm water management, deep rooted vegetative buffers, rain gardens, etc.) It is the Board of Adjustment's job to apply appropriate legal standards to a specific fact situation. Variances are meant to be an infrequent remedy where an ordinance imposes a unique and substantial burden. ! Wayne & Denise Erickson - Withdrawn (6:57 p.m.) Wayne Erickson, The North 660’ of Government Lot 2, Unnamd Lake (698) in Friberg Township, request the following: A 50 foot variance is requested from 200 feet to 150 feet from the water. Due to the steep hills and wooded landscape this is the only suitable place for the home. The application was represented by Wayne Erickson. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. June 13.2019 After significant discussion and consideration, Rick Wilson made a motion, seconded by Darren Newville to deny the variance request and to work with Land & Resource Management to ensure all regulations are as close to compliance as they can possibly get and no adequate hardship/practical difficulty has been shown that would allow for the granting of the variance request. This motion failed on a tie vote with Kenneth Vorderbruggen, Thomas Lee & Steve Schierer voting against the motion. No other action taken, therefore tabled to July 11,2019. July 11.2019 On June 19, 2019 Wayne & Denise Erickson submitted a letter requesting to withdraw their variance application dated May 21, 2019. The request to withdraw their variance application was accepted by general consent of the Board of Adjustment. Firefly Dead Lake, Jade Neilson Properties, LLC - Tabled (6:58 p.m.) Firefly Dead Lake, Jade Neilson Properties, LLC, Part of GL 1 & Pt of GL 6, Dead Lake in Dunn Township, request the following: FOR TFIE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION: A Conditional Use Permit and the revised Preliminary Plat of Common Interest Community No. 84 Firefly Dead Lake, signed and dated June 19, 2019, proposing to convert White Haven Resort into a Common Interest Community Plat of 16 residential dwelling units will assumed to have been recommended for approval by the Otter Tail County Planning Commission with the following conditions which require approval from the Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment. Modular Cabins No. 1-3 will be located 20 feet further back from the lake than existing Cabins No. 1-3 which will be removed and the area revegetated to its natural state, thus offering more protection to the top of the steep bank. Variances of 123, 121 and 118 feet from the 200 foot setback to the closest cabin comer are needed for the approved locations of Modular Cabins No. 1-3. Modular Cabin No. 5 will be located 37 feet further back from the lake than existing Cabin No. 5 which will be removed and the area revegetated to its natural state, thus offering more protection to the top of the steep bank. A variance of 106 feet from the 200 foot setback to the closest cabin comer is needed for the approved location of Modular Cabin No. 5. Modular Cabin No. 6 will be located 31 feet further back from the lake than existing Cabin No. 6 which will be removed and the area revegetated to its natural state, thus offering more protection to the top of the steep bank. A variance of 102 feet from the 200 foot setback to the closest cabin comer is needed for the approved location of Modular Cabin No. 6. Modular Cabin No. 7 will be located 61 feet further back from the lake than existing Cabin No. 7 which will be removed and the area revegetated to its natural state, thus offering more protection to the top of the steep bank. A variance of 99 feet from the 200 foot setback to the closest cabin comer is needed for the approved location of Modular Cabin No. 7. Modular Cabin No. 8 will require a variance of 110 feet from the 200 foot setback to the closest cabin comer is needed for the approved location of Modular Cabin No. 8. An email was received to request that the variance application be tabled to August 8, 2019. A motion by Darren Newville, seconded by Thomas Lee and unanimously carried to table the variance application until August 8, 2019. Ace Brandt - Variance Application Approved as Requested (7:05 p.m.) Ace Brandt, Tract A Registered Land Survey #14, Pelican Lake in Scambler Township, request the following: We are proposing to constmct new retaining walls on our property and a portion of 2 of the retaining walls will be in the bluff. On the NE side 29.5 ft of the retaining wall will be in the bluff and on the NW side 9 ft. of the retaining wall will be in the bluff. The required setback is 30’ from the top of the bluff We will be removing the existing boulder retaining walls on the property along with deck that over hangs the bluff and the existing firepit as well as the walkway from the firepit to the landscaping edge. The engineering company for this project is Northern Technologies Incorporated. The application was represented by Jesse Omdahl, representing Ace Brandt and Kari Mead, Landscape Architect. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. July 11,2019Page I 2 ^Ace Brandt - Continued After consideration and discussion, Darren Newville made a motion, seconded by Douglas Larson unanimously carried to approve the proposed project as indicated in the variance application dated June 16, 2019 and as depicted on the drawing submitted with the application to construct new retaining walls and based on the Findings of Fact and Decision Form, which contains the criteria reviewed and the Board’s finding has been attached to and incorporated as an official part of the minutes which has been placed on file with the Land & Resource Management Department. It was noted that this is a maintenance and improvements. The variance as approved does not directly or indirectly grant any other variances for future development. Steve & Jan George - Variance Application Approved as Requested (7:10 p.m.) Steve & Jan George, CIC #40, Lot 4 & Int in Outlot A Common Elements, Leek/Trowbridge Lake in Candor Township, request the following: Existing structure (including cabin and deck) begin 50’ from OHWL. We are asking to add an 8 x 8 deck on the NW side of cabin to make deck into a rectangle instead of the current L-shape. This proposed addition to the deck would begin at 62’ from the OHWL. Current requirement is 100’ The application was represented by Jan George. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. After consideration and discussion, Darren Newville made a motion, seconded by Thomas Lee and unanimously carried to approve the variance request to add an 8’ x 8’ deck on the NW side of the cabin approximately 62’ from the ordinary high water level and based on the Findings of Fact and Decision Form, which contains the criteria reviewed and the Board’s finding has been attached to and incorporated as an official part of the minutes which has been placed on file with the Land & Resource Management Department. The variance as approved does not directly or indirectly grant any other variances for future development. Steven & Carla Wurzer -Tabled (7:14 p.m.) Steven & Carla Wurver, Lots 12 & 13 of South Point W BL, West Battle Lake in Girard Township, request the following: Lots 12 and 13 both meet the 66% rule of MN Stat. Sec. 394.36, with the exception of the residence on Lot 12 being 9 feet too close to the lot line shared with Lot 13. Instead of tearing down or moving the residence on Lot 12, applicants propose to move the lot line between Lots 12 and 13 as shown on the attached drawing so that all setback and other requirements are met for both Lots 12 and 13, leaving both Lots 12 and 13 as buildable for single family residential use in compliance with all ordinances and the 66% rule of MN Stat. Sec. 394.36. The variance being sought is to Section 1.6. A of the Subdivision Controls Ordinance, which allows for subdivision for attachment not contiguous lots where no residual lot remains. In this case. Lot 13 would remain as a separate buildable lot for single family residential use in compliance with all the setbacks, ordinance, and the 66% rule of MN Stat. Sec. 394.36. The application was represented by Michael Wurzer. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. A letter from John Lindner in support of the variance request was read for the record and Paula Lang submitted a letter in opposition to the variance request which was read for the record as well. After consideration and discussion, Chris LeClair, Administrator, Land & Resource Management made a recommendation to the Board of Adjustment to table to allow Ben Olson, County Attorney to do more research to make sure the applicant is requesting a variance from the proper ordinance as well as to allow the applicant to contact a septic designer to determine if a type I septic system can be placed on Lots 12 & 13. Thomas Lee made a motion, seconded by Darren Newville and unanimously carried to table with verbal permission of the applicant at this public hearing until August 8, 2019 Board of Adjustment hearing to allow the applicant to have soil testing done on Lots 12 & 13 to verify that a type I septic system can be placed on each lot. John L. Mari, Et A1 - Variance Application Approved as Requested (7:53 p.m.) John L. Mari, Lot 9 - McDonald Lake Estates, Little McDonald Lake in Edna Township, request the following: For roof replacement on an existing 12’x26’ Porch 62’ from OHWL, a variance of 12’ from the required setback of 75’. New cabin meets all lake setbacks, no variance required on that portion. The application was represented by John Mari. The audience was polled with no one speaking for or against the variance as requested. After consideration and discussion, Steve Schierer made a motion, seconded by David Wass and unanimously carried to approved the variance request to replace the roof on the existing 12’x 26’ porch being 62’ from the ordinary high water level which can be no closer than the existing porch as depicted on the drawing submitted with the variance application dated June 19, 2019 and based on the Findings of Fact and Decision Fonn, which contains the criteria reviewed and the Board’s finding have been attached to and incorporated as an official part of the minutes which has been placed on file with the Land & Resource Management Department. The variance as approved does not directly or indirectly grant any other variances from proposed or future development. July 11,2019Page I 3 LAND & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OTTERTAIL Government Services Center 540 West Fir Avenue Fergus Falls, MN 56537COUNTY - MINNESOTA Notice of Hearing for Variance Applicant and/or applicant's representative must be present at the scheduled hearing. To Whom it May Concern: Ace A. Brandt PO Box 230 Fargo ND 58107 Has/have made application to the Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment for a variance as per requirements of the Otter Tail County Shoreland Management Ordinance, the Otter Tail County Set Back Ordinance, the Subdivision Controls Ordinance of Otter Tail County, Otter Tail County Sanitation Code and/or the Wind Energy Conversion System Ordinance of Otter Tail County. The Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment will assemble for this hearing on Thursday, July 11, 2019, 2019 at 6:30 p.m. in the Commissioner's Room of the Otter Tail County Government Services Center, Fergus Falls, MN. (Please use the public entrance located on the northeasterly side of the Government Services Center. The second left off Fir Ave.) Individuals requiring special accommodations should contact the Otter tail County Land & Resource Management office prior to the date of the public hearing. ** Weather conditions may change the Hearing date and time. If bad weather occurs, piease iisten to the iocal Fergus Faiis Radio Stations or contact the Land & Resource Management Office by 4:30 p.m. for possibie rescheduling of the Hearing. The property concerned in the application is legally described and located at: Legal Description:Parcel No.- 55000990828000 Tract A Registered Land Survey #14 Section 11, Township 137, Range 43 Township Name - Scambler Pelican (56-786), General Development (GD) 20257 S. Pelican Dr., Pelican Rapids MN 56572 Lake Name/Number/Class: Property Address: The variance requested is the following: We are proposing to construct new retaining walls on our property and a portion of 2 of the retaining walls will be in the bluff. On the NE side 29.5 ft of the retaining wall will be in the bluff and on the NW side 9 ft. of the retaining wall will be in the bluff. The required setback is 30' from the top of the bluff. We will be removing the existing boulder retaining walls on the property along with deck that over hangs the bluff and the existing firepit as well as the walkway from the firepit to the landscaping edge. The engineering company for this project is Northern Technologies Incorporated. Anjy Busko Board of Adjustment Secretary June 27, 2019 ottertailcountymn.usOTTERTAIL COUNTY IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER218-998-8095 \\1399.5 \ \\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ >1398.2 97.1 1395.6 OTTER TAIL COUNTY Fergus Falls, Minnesota STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss COUNTY OF OTTER TAIL I, Amy Busko, Secretary for the Board of Adjustment for Otter Tail County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that on the 27th day of June, 2019 the attached Notice of Hearing for Variance was duly served upon the individuals listed below and/or included in the attachment: ) Property Owner Township Clerk Lake Association Sandy Tingelstad, Clerk Scambler Township 20835 S. Sand Lake Rd. Pelican Rapids MN 56572 Pelican Group Lake Imp. Dist. PO Box 336 Pelican Rapids MN 56572 Ace A. Brandt PO Box 230 Fargo ND 58107 City Clerk (if located within 2 miles of a city) E Lake Improvement District (If project is located on their lake, mail notices to the Lake Improvement District) Big McDonald Lake Improvement DIst., PO Box 81, Dent, MN 56528 Devils Lake Imp. Dist., PO Box 431 Perham, MN 56573 Big McDonald: Devils (Near Perham): Little McDonald, Kerbs & Paul: LMKP Lakes Imp. Dist., PO Box 133, Perham, MN 56573 1 ittifi Pinft & Bin Pinfi- Pinp I akRS Imn Dist. PO Rnx 405 Pfirham MN 56573I Pelican, Fish, Bass & Lt Pelican: Pelican Lake Group Lake Imp. Dist., PO Box 336, Pelican Rapids, MN 56572 bouth 1 urtle Lake imp Uist., PU Box ibb, Underwood, mN 56586 tu boutn I urtle Lake: Otter Tail County COLA, 4302 13"^ Ave S Ste. 4-333, Fargo, ND 58103 Chuck Grotto, OTC Hwy Engineer, 505 S Court St Suite #1, Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Julie Aadland, DNR Eco & Water Resources, 1509 1®' Ave N, Fergus Falls, MN 56537 Board of Adjustment Members: Ken Vorderbrugen, 20901 County Hwy 65, Henning MN 56551 R. Stephen Schierer 32117 260''^ Ave, Erhard MN 56534 Thomas (Tom) Lee, 15600 County Hwy 118, Elizabeth MN 56533-9559 Darren M Newville, 614 6'^ St NE, Perham, MN 56573 Douglas Larson, 2118 Woodland Ln., Fergus Falls MN 56537 Planning Commission Member: David Wass, 29133 260'^ St. Underwood MN 56586 By placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope, postage prepaid and depositing the same in the United States Mail at Fergus Falls, MN, properly addressed to each of the individuals listed above and/or listed in the attachment.Number of Notices & Envelopes to Print FileDated: June 27, 2019 k.ExtraAmy Busko, Secretary Otter Tail County Board of Adjustment 5BOA Members PC Member[ Envelopes _________ TOTAL NOTICES TO PRINT I I Added to Agenda FOF Amy Busko By: % Print out Findings of Fact Sheet ^ Newspapers l:\BOA\Affidavits\Brandt (786) 07-11-19.docx Buffer Parcels Parcel No Name 1 Addr 1Name 2 Addr 2 CityStZiD Pelican Rapids MN 56572 7077Debra Lamb55000110069007 20231 Pelican DrS 55000110069009 Hoff Land Holdings LLC 20098 Pelican Dr S Pelican Rapids MN 56572 7813 Grand Forks ND 58201 2813Bayview Shores Assn55000110071001 Attn Joan Knecht 5825 Pinehurst Ct 55000110071005 James A Dotzenrod Wyndmere ND 58081 0069PO Box 69 55000110071006 Matthew D Tharaldson PO Box 9797 Fargo ND 58106 9797 55000990326000 Michael Steven Huffman 50469 Angle Rd Pelican Rapids MN 56572 7089 55000990327000 Michael Steven Huffman 50469 Angle Rd Pelican Rapids MN 56572 7089 55000990328000 Michael Steven Huffman 50469 Angle Rd Pelican Rapids MN 56572 7089 Pelican Rapids MN 56572 708955000990329000 Michael Steven Huffman 50469 Angle Rd 55000990330000 Daniel Carlson 5280 8th Ct W West Fargo ND 58078 5020 55000990485000 ’ Bayview Shores Assn Grand Forks ND 58201 2813 ■;Attn Joan Knecht 5825 Pinehurst Ct 55000990486000 Roland W & Kathleen A Johnson 471 Clearview Ct Moorhead MN 56560 6801 Pelican Rapids MN‘56572 709055000990488000Susan Mercil 50202 Andys Ln 55000990489000^ Ryan C & Onica J Johnson Leonard ND 58052 0386PO Box 386 55000990490000 Johnathon & Megan Rademacher West Fargo ND 58078 7928• 3647 Hidden Cir 55000990491000 Benton J & Jennifer R Hicks 1932 51st Ave N Moorhead MN 56560 8801 55000990492000 Benton J & Jennifer R Hicks - 1932 51st Ave N Moorhead MN 56560 8801 55000990494000 Keith B & Cheryl P Anderson 343 4th St Walcott ND 58077 4022 55000990496000 Thomas A & Kimberly P Noah 4336 Timberline Dr S Fargo ND 58104 6634 55000990497000 Mark Simunds 2330 Tart Lake Rd Lino Lakes MN 55038 7730 55000990498000 Allen Golberg 50354 Anderson Beach Rd Pelican Rapids MN 56572 7087 55000990500000 Lloyd A & Betty Larson 1329 12th Ave S Fargo ND 58103 3005 55000990501000 James & Jeana Peinovich 132 Prairiewood Dr Fargo ND 58103 4611 Friday, June 21, 2019 Page 1 of 2 Parcel No Citv St ZipAddrZAddrlName 1 Name 2 Pelican Rapids MN 56572 708855000990502000 Erling S Betty J Opskar 50400 Anderson Beach TrI 55000990503000 James A Dotzenrod Wyndmere ND 58081 0069PO Box 69 55000990504000 ; James A Dotzenrod Wyndmere ND 58081 0069PO Box 69 55000990737000 Teri & Rodney Helling Alexandria MN 56308 80694861 County Road 11 NE Fargo ND 58107 190455000990738000 Parnela L & Brent T Jenkins PO Box 1904 PO Box 1904 Fargo ND 58107 1904Pamela L & Brent T Jenkins55000990739000 Pelican Rapids MN 56572 707755000990740000 Debra Lamb 20231 Pelican DrS 55000990828000 Ace A Brandt Fargo ND 58107 0230PO Box 230 Fargo ND 58107 023055000990829000 - , Ace A Brandt PO Box 230 Paee 2 of 2Friday. June 21. 2019 Buffer Mail City, State, ZipAddress i Address 2Name Keith B & Cheryl P Anderson 343 4th St Walcott ND 58077 4022 Bayview Shores Assn 5825 Pinehurst Ct Grand Forks ND 58201 2813 Ace A Brandt PO Box 230 Fargo ND 58107 0230 Daniel Carlson 5280 8th Ct W West Fargo ND 58078 5020 James A Dotzenrod Wyndmere ND 580810069PO Box 69 Allen Golberg 50354 Anderson Beach Rd Pelican Rapids MN 56572 7087 Teri & Rodney Flelling 4861 County Road 11 NE Alexandria MN 56308 8069 Benton J & Jennifer R Hicks 1932 51st Ave N Moorhead MN 56560 8801 Hoff Land Holdings LLC 20098 Pelican Dr S Pelican Rapids MN 56572 7813 Michael Steven Huffman 50469 Angle Rd Pelican Rapids MN 56572 7089 Pamela L & Brent T Jenkins PO Box 1904 Fargo ND 58107 1904 Roland W & Kathleen A Johnson 471 Clearview Ct Moorhead MN 56560 6801 Leonard ND 58052 0386 .Ryan C& Onica J Johnson PO Box 386 Debra Lamb 20231 Pelican DrS Pelican Rapids MN 56572 7077 Fargo ND 58103 30051329 12th Ave SLloyd A & Betty Larson 50202 Andys LnSusan Mercil Pelican Rapids MN 56572 7090 Thomas A & Kimberly P Noah 4336 Timberline Dr S Fargo ND 58104 6634 •i. Erling & Betty J Opskar 50400 Anderson Beach TrI Pelican Rapids MN 56572 7088 James & Jeana Peinovich 132 Prairiewood Dr Fargo ND 58103 4611 Johnathon & Megan Rademacher 3647 Hidden Cir West Fargo ND 58078 7928 Friday, June 21, 2019 Page 1 of 2 -City, State, ZipAddress 2NameAddress 1 Lino Lakes MN 55038 7730Mark Simunds 2330 Tart Lake Rd Matthew D Tharaldspn Fargo ND 58106 9797PO Box 9797 :■ r'- FridayrJune 21t^019 Page 2 of 2 'A?; , IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATION List & identify ali existing & proposed onsite Impervious surfaces on scale drawing. Lot Area (ft*); Other Impervious SurfaceBuildings ExistingProposed ProposedExisting Ft*Ft*Ft*Ft* Deck(s)Dweliing /Yy/ l3!<pTilPatio(s)Attached Garage O Sidewalk(s)i Detached Garage n 15Landingfs); Storage Shed Drivewav(s); WOAS Parking Area(s)RCU HZZ.Miscellaneous Retaining Wall(s) Landscaping (Plattle BafTieM aMiscellaneous III31200TOTAL BUILDINGS TOTAL OTHER Buildings Impervious Surface Percentage Maximum Allowable 20% Existing Proposed Total Lot Area Impervious Surface Ratio Ft*Ft*Ft*Ft*Total Buildings .OOSli^0. 3IH'^ 7s%\20 O 100+s X Buildings *■ Other Impervious Surface Percentage Maximum Allowable 25% Total Buildings + Other Impervious Surface Existing Proposed Total Lot Area Impervious Surface Ratio Ft* Ft*Ft*Ft* = ,0^(^7327III7726^0 100+X LR: Ontin* Ppnnifting Forms ?01B: Impervious Surface Calculation Worksheet C4*11-2016 b! a !Signature:. SCALE DRAWING FORM Tax Parcel Numbcris) ^.... . - ^ -- A signed drawing which includes and identifies a graphic scale in.feet or indicates all setback distances, all existing and/or proposed structures, septic tanks, drainfields, lotlines, road right-of-ways, easements, OHWLS, wells, wetlands, topographic features (i.e. bluffs), and onsite impervious surface calculations. Scale: 1 inch - __^Pate ^Signature ^€6 pi ^ OTTER TAILfCOUNTY - MINNESOTA Tuesday June 18th, 2019 PLEASE NOTE; When land is valued by frontage, the amount of feet shown in based on the widest dimension on the front or the back of the lot. Any questions regarding the information on the Appraisal Information section should be directed to the County Assessor. Parcel Map Bl Parcel Summary Gl Detailed Results ®'"Sales Data Detailed Results Parcel Number: 55000990828000 Town / City:SCAMBLER TOWNSHIP HRA District: Lake Improvement District: Tax Increment District: OTTER TAIL COUNTY HRA School District:PELICAN RAPIDS 548 PEL LAKE IMPR DIST Watershed District: 20257 PELICAN DR S 56572Site Address / SiteHospital District: PELICAN VALLEY HEALT ^ip- Plat / Legal Description: Section-11 Township-137 Range-043 REGISTERED LAND SURVEY #14 TRACT A Primary Taxpayer: ACE A BRANDT Alternate Taxpayer: N/A PO BOX 230 FARGO, ND 58107-0230 Summary Data Parcel Number: 55000990828000 Summary of Land Value Land Program ValueHmstd Status Land ValueRecord Description 371351 01Non-Homestead SEASONAL RES REC Total Land Value:371351 0 Summary of Building Value Record Description Hmstd Status Building Value SEASONAL RES1 Non-Homestead 452051REC Total Building Value:452051 Total of Land Value & Building Value Total Parcel Value:823402 0 Land Detail Parcel Number: 55000990828000 DescriptionRecord Land Program Acres Description Frontage Depth Acreage Unit Type SEASONAL RES REC Non- Homestead SEASONAL RES REC Non- Homestead SEASONAL RES REC Non- Homestead SEASONAL RES REC Non- Homestead SEASONAL RES REC Non- Homestead WOODLOT1 N/A N/A 14.57 AC PELICAN LAKE1 100 400 N/A FF LAKE LOT BASE1 N/A N/A N/A UT PELICAN LAKE N/A FF155400 1 ROAD N/A N/A 0.81 AC Building(s) Detail Classification: SEASONAL RES REC Non-Homestead Parcel Number: 55000990828000 Building Type: Valuation Record: 1 SINGLE FAM HVAC (Combined heating, Ventilating and Air conditioning): Sprinkler System : Height: Story: N/A YES N/ABasement: Heating System: Air Conditioning: YES N/A YES 0 Building Details Building Portion Quantity IncompleteSizeUnitsAge 1 1/2 STORY GARAGE BASE AREA 1 1/4 STORY OPEN PORCH FINISHED BASEMENT FIREPLACE WALKOUT BASEMENT GARAGE FINISH 1989 720 SF 0 N/A 1989 500 SF 0 N/A 1989 1780 SF 0 N/A 1989 256 SF 0 N/A 1998 2280 SF 0 N/A 1989 0 UT 1 N/A 1997 0 UT 1 N/A 1989 360 SF 0 N/A Additional Features on Property Parcel Number: 55000990828000 Valuation Record Description CYCLONE FENCE DECK CONCRETE DRIVE PATIO SHED DECK PATIO SHED Age Size Units Quantity Incomplete 1989 N/A LF 2010 1431 SF 1998 1584 SF 1998 680 SF 1989 45 SF 2013 216 SF 2016 144 SF 2017 260 SF 1 1 N/A 1 1 N/A 1 1 N/A 1 1 N/A 1 1 N/A 1 1 N/A 1 1 N/A 1 1 N/A Q^new simple search ©Copyright 2001- 2019 County of Otter Tail, Minnesota, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved. This web site is maintained by Otter Tail County. OTTBtTAILBack to Home Page JK, Otter Tail County Vi$itth©County Webstte Fk joT?o|i HWY9 ^2 CO HWY 9 50^COHWY9 Help 164T5 k-' w«uch icii vO □9)468^LERDn5044« CO €,ERD 'kiLERDM.S OTTER TAILo u COUNTY • MINNESOTA '^s. iao3*9^K3LERD /■ Vake View Beach 4lh A«n ^20231 S P®ICAN DR 47 S PELICAN DR^' 1 G.I.S. Web Map App4s' MdP Overview (Video help)op 5 M) How to Lavers 50412 AtCERSON BEACH TRLfltotfit 1 ■9 Using IdentifyPEUCAN2009620257^3 PELICAN4 How to Search504X AMDERSON BEACH TRL ^50388 ANDERSON BEACH TRL ^0378 ANDE RSO N BEACH TRL ■50354 ANDERSON BEACH RD 50346 ^Si'NbiR^N BEACH RD %0338 ANDERSON BEACH RDe S5000110069000 How to Query bv Parcel, bv Shape, bv Name, by1211 How to Create a BufferO 55000990828000 Buffering a Lake Shape Download data to CSV for Excel fNCO ^366 CO HWY 9 go How to MeasureLflinO How to use the Draw Tool? 50316ANDERSON BEACH RD^ *50300ANDERSONBEACHRD *50214 ANDYS LN ■^•^50210 ANDYS LN -."Jj! ,50202 ANDYS LN \ ,50190 ANDYS LN S PELICAN DR tc.55000110069009 save link as—„ANDERS° Contact GIS Office Otter Tail County Web SiteOT'5 ? CO HWY 9 550001100710010OOj9t?l')*4’^ ^039^SV Otter Tail County GiS Depaitm 300ft0TSS"96.073 46,^93 Degrees sKylinesleel SKZ/SCZ Technical Hotline: 1-866-875-9546 engineering@skylinesteel.com www.skylinesteel.com 03/08 SKZ/SCZ Cold Formed Steel Sheet Piling W\ th w w SKZ/SCZ WEIGHT COATING AREACross Sectional Area Section Modulus Moment of InertiaWidth Height Thickness Both Sides Coating Area(w)(h)(t)Pile Wall ftVftin ftWink/m in^/ft (cm2/m) IWft in^/ft in</ftSECTION (nf/m)(nf/nf)(mm)(mm) (kN/m)(kg/m)(kg/irf)(cirf/m) 1&0028.50 20.310.315 6.00 31.6948.24 253.51 34618 7.60 1.60SKZ20723.9 406.4 99.17 17048.0 136.20 71.79 1.602.32 28.50 16.00 6.300.335 33.4351.30 21.60 105.46 267.40 36515 7.60 1.60SKZ22723.9 4064 145.40 17978.5 78.34 2.32 1.60 28.50 16.00 0.354 6.70 54.20 22.82 111.42 35.61 284.90 38905 1.607.60SKZ23723.9 406.4 9.0 162.50 80.66 1915 2.32 1.60 28.50 0.37516.00 7.10 57.43 24.18 118.06 37.73 301.80 41213 1.607.60SKZ249.5723.9 406.4 179.50 85.47 2028 1.602.32 28.50 16.00 0.399 7.60 61.10 25.73 125.61 40.14 321.12 1.607.60SKZ25723.9 406.4 10.1 188.00 90.93 2158 43851 1.602.32 28J0 10JM 0.250 4.18 33.81 14.23 14.36 71.82 &10 1.28SCZ14723.9 254 6.4 88.48 50.31 69.50 772 9808 1.86 1.28 28.50 10.00 0.276 4.62 37.37 15:73 15.75 78.73 1g?i0 1.28SCZ16723.9 254 7.0 97.79 55.61 76.82 847 10751 1.86 1.28 29.95 10.13 0.315 5.16 43.86 17.57 16.86 88.77 6.32 1.27SCZ17760.8 257.3 8.0 109.22 65.27 85.79 906 12122 1.93 1.27 TOTlinT0.335 TTIW MW 12356 T27SCZ18760.8 257.3 8.5 116.21 69.45 91.28 960 1.93 1.2729.95 10.13 0.354 S50 49.30 19.75 18.74 94.92 12962 1.27SCZ19 760.8 257.3 9.0 122.77 73.37 96.43 1008 193 1.27 29.95 10.13 0.375 6.14 52.19 20.91 102.10 19.85 100.55 6.32 1.27SCZ21760.8 257.3 9.5 129.96 77.67 1067 13731 1.93 1.27 24.02 13.39 0.315 6.43 43.81 21.89 106.90 29.76 199.19 5.91 1.48SCZ226103408.0 136.20 65.19 1600 27200 1.80 1.48 24.02 0.335 6.87 46.84 253T 114.00 31.62 223.63 28900 15T 1.48SCZ236103408.5 145.40 69.70 1700 1.80 1.48 24.02 13.39 0.354 727 49.60 24.78 121.00 33.48 244.08 5.91 1.48SCZ256103409.0 153.95 73.80 1800 30600 1.80 1.48 0.375 7.68 52.28 26.22 35.3424.02 13.39 236.53 32300 5.91 1.48SCZ26 610 340 9.5 162.50 1.8077.80 1.48128.00 1900 TT4T3 948 MSr 141.00 39.0624.02 13.39 35700 5.91 1.48SCZ2961034010.5 179.50 1.80 1.4886.20 2100 0.433 8.88 60.6824.02 30.31 148.00 40.9213.39 273.88 37400 5.91 1.48SCZ3061034011.0 1.80 1.48188.00 90.30 2200 Product Data Sheet SKZ/SCZ Cold Formed Steel Sheet Piling s^ylinesleel SKZ/SCZ Technical Hotline; 1-866-875-9546 engineering@skylinesteel.com www.skylinesteel.com 03/08 SKZ/SCZ Cold Formed Steel Sheet Piling Comer Piles A 80° - 225°B 12 Corner Pile B3 Corner Pile SCZ14-SCZ16 A = 5.0 inches (127.0 mm) B = 23.5 inches (596.9 mm) SCZ17-SCZ21 A = 5.0 inches (127.0 mm) B = 24.95 inches (633.7 mm) SKZ 20 - SKZ 25 A = 5.0 inches (127.0 mm) B = 23.5 inches (S96.9 mm) SCZ 22 - SCZ 30 A = 5.0 inches (127.0 mm) B = 19.0 inches (482.6 mm) Delivery Conditions & Tolerances ASTM ± 2.5% + 5 inches ± 0.08 inches 0.2% of the length 0.4% of the width Mass Length Interlock Opening Straightness Twisting - 0 inches Maximum Rolled Lengths* SKZ, SCZ ‘Longer lengths may be possible upon request. 70 feet (21.3 m) Optional Accessories ^ Sheet Pile Protector CapWaler Sheet Pile Protector Product Data Sheet SKZ/SCZ Cold Formed Steel Sheet Piling NTI nCHMOtOCKS,LLC GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION and ENGINEERING REVIEW Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 Prepared For: Brandt Holding Company P.O. Box 230 4650 26th Avenue South, Suite E Fargo, North Dakota 3522 4th Avenu0 South Fargo, ND 58103 2:701.232.1822 5:701.232.1864 Unearthing confidence™ NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES. LLC www.NTlgeQ.com July?, 2016 Brandt Holding Company P.O. Box 230 4650 26th Avenue South, Suite E Fargo, ND 58107-0230 Mr. Ace Brandt, PresidentAttn: Subject: Geotechnical Exploration and Engineering Review Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTl Project 16-13556.700 In accordance with Tomlinson and Sons request and subsequent May 25, 2016 verbal authorization, Northern Technologies, LLC (NTl) conducted a Geotechnical Exploration for the above referenced project. Our services included advancement of exploration borings and preparation of an engineering report with recommendations developed from our geotechnical services. We performed our work in general accordance with our proposal of May 24, 2016. We will hold soil samples obtained at the site for 60 days at which time we will discard the soil samples. Please advise us in writing if you wish to have us retain them for a longer period. You will be assessed an additional fee if soil samples are retained beyond 60 days. We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service on this project. Please contact us at your convenience if there are any questions regarding the soils explored, or our review and recommendations. Northern Technologies, LLC Bret R. Anderson, P.E. Principal Josh Holmes, P.E. Engineer Tomlinson and Sons, Inc. - Mr. Dana Tomlinson Heyer Engineering - Mr. Dave Bruns, P.E. BHH Partners - Mr. Anthony Stoll, AIA cc: Precision Expertise ■ Geotechnical • Materials FARGO BISMARCK GRAND FORKS MINOT INVER GROVE HEIGHTS RAMSEY Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 Contents 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 2.0 INTRODUCTION ,4 2.1 Site / Project Description 2.2 Scope of Services........... 4 ,4 3.0 EXPLORATION PROGRAM RESULTS 6 3.1 Exploration Scope. 3.2 Surface Conditions 6 6 3.3 Subsurface Conditions 6 3.4 Ground Water Conditions.7 3.5 Laboratory Test Program 7 4.0 ENGINEERING REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8 4.1 Project Scope............................................... 4.2 Site Preparation - BLR Structure.................. 4.3 Site Preparation -Existing Embankment....... 4.4 Global Stability of Excavation / Embankment 4.5 Shallow Foundations - BLR Structure............ 8 8 10 10 12 4.6 Bearing Factor of Safety - BLR Structure 13 4.7 Estimate of Settlement - BLR Structure 13 4.8 Subsurface Drainage - BLR Structure and Embankment 4.9 Utilities-BLR Structure................................................ 14 15 4.10 Slab-on-Grade Floors - BLR Structure 16 4.11 Exterior Backfill - BLR Structure 17 4.12 Surface Drainage and Vegetative Cover - BLR Structure and Embankment 18 195.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Excavation Stability / Person in Charge 5.2 Engineered Fill & Winter Construction. 5.3 Operation of Project Sumps............... 19 19 20 216.0 CLOSURE Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 APPENDIX A NotelTable 9: Laboratory Soil Parameters Used in Stability Analysis of Embankment / Excavation Table 10: Summary of Slope Stability - Factors of Safety for Embankment ^ GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF RECOVERED SOIL SAMPLES FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Water Level Symbol Excavation Oversize APPENDIX B GROUNDWATER ISSUES GEOTEXTILE FABRIC and GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT PLACEMENT and COMPACTION OF ENGINEERED FILL SWELLING of CLAY SOILS PROJECT SUMPS APPENDIX C Stability Figures lA through 4C Laboratory Test Results Triaxial Test - Consolidated Drained Strength Unconfined Compression Test Consolidation Test (4) Soil Boring Diagram Soil Boring Logs Fence Diagram GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION AND ENGINEERING REVIEW Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We briefly summarize below our geotechnical recommendations for the proposed project. You must read this summary in complete context with our report. We conclude you may support the proposed Brandt Lake Residence [BLR] on standard, frost protected perimeter and interior strip footings with special foundation support at rear of BLR consisting of frost protected grade beam bearing upon properly designed and contractor installed helical piers. We base this conclusion for support of BLR on founding of footings and helical piers on competent, non-organic natural soil(s) or engineered fill, as recommended within our report. Major items of issue for your project include: Structural engineer may proportion building linear strip footings using the maximum net allowable soil bearing pressures of Table 4. Helical pier support of west grade beam must extend below the UU Fill soils with bearing occurring within the underlying lean clay strata occurring at depth of 9 feet, or within underlying alluvial silt or over consolidated fat clay soils. We conclude that the helical pier must consist of a 2 7/8 inch outside diameter or larger pipe shaft section with minimum wall thickness of 0.203 inch. We anticipate that the lead section of helical pier must provide three helic flights of 10 inch/12 inch /14 inch or larger diameter sections installed at three times diameter spacing interval. Conceptually, such helical pier should provide an ultimate resistance of 33 kips with corresponding design resistance of 16 kips. The above estimate of helical pier capacity is approximate and provided solely as general guide in estimating spacing of helical piers along the west foundation wall of the BLR. Such estimate does not constitute or imply design of helical pier support for project. An independent professional engineer licensed to practice in the State of Minnesota must determine the actual ultimate and design capacity of helical pier utilized in support of grade beam construction. Our exploration indicates Undocumented, Uncontrolled Fill [UU Fill] extends to approximately nine feet at soil borings SB-3. You should anticipate similar but variable depth of Undocumented, Uncontrolled Fill across excavation advanced for the BLR. NTI must be present during site stripping and excavation to confirm removal of unsuitable soils from below project construction. Page 1 of 21 Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 Special consideration as to removal of UU Fill landward of the west most strip footing of basement level requires further discussion and review. Presently, it is our opinion that Contractor stage excavation and construction of this foundation wall such that no more than twelve lineal feet of wall and lakeside excavation occurs at any given time. This is necessary to limit shear of the near surface to medium depth soils occurring within the embankment west of the BLR. \Ne recommend that Contractor provide a clear program to address excavation and soil removal along the basement wall, thus limiting shear of embankment While we did not encounter measurable ground water during or at the completion of drilling operations, soil samples recovered during our exploration program were moist. The moisture content of lens soils and host clays will vary annually and per recent precipitation. Such soils and other regional dependent conditions may produce ground water entry of project excavations. We direct your attention to other report sections and appendices attachments concerning ground water issues and subsurface drainage recommendations. Through material composition, clay soils have a tendency to swell with absorption of moisture. This is especially true for fat clays (CH) or silty fat clays (CH-MH) due to increased montmorillonite mineral content. The attachment presented within the appendices provides a brief description of the swell process of clay, and provides limited recommendation(s) for reducing this risk on your project. Note a major attribute contributing to swell of clays is absorption of moisture under reduced confinement. Continuous drainage of site excavations is necessary to reduce swelling impacts to your project. Corrective earthwork and site improvements are necessary to optimize stability of the embankment at your property. We understand past corrective earthwork has removed a majority of debris and granular sand fill from the lower two thirds of embankment face placed by previously property owner. However, your antidotal comments and soil boring SB-1 confirm presence of granular fill and possible debris still exists within the upper third of embankment face, with ongoing seeps and local shear failure of soils resulting from saturation of the sand formation. To address this continued shallow sloughing of soils, we recommend you implement the following with respect to corrective earthwork related to the embankment at your property. • Implement final corrective grading of the upper third of embankment face removing any remaining granular fill or debris that exists on site. Soil boring SB-1 implies that this corrective grading could be as deep as 24 feet below existing ground surface (to approximate USGS elevation 1366 feet). You should the extent and depth of this grading program will be variable. Upon removal of granular fill and debris, we recommend you contour the exposed clay subgrade providing a nearly level profile with "stair-stepped" change in grade provided along steep side slopes likely to result from soil removal. We then recommend that you import sandy lean clay as engineered fill placement to final subgrade elevation. You may then establish topsoil cover and a deep rooted, native prairie grass cover for that portion of crest and embankment disturbed by project grading. We direct you to other report discussion concerning corrective earthwork at embankment crest. • You should install a series of horizontal dewatering wells laterally into the embankment face for purpose of reducing pressure and adverse impacts resulting from perched ground water. We present discussion of this item within other report section. Page 2 of 21 C£)Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 • The stability of a soil embankment is a study of what loads are trying to collapse the ground verse the material resisting deformation. This is similar to comparison of a grandfather clock pendulum held to one side. Gravity tries to pull the pendulum to the bottom of the arc while your hand provides resistance to this movement. If you were to add additional weight to the pendulum, you would eventually come to a condition where you would barely be able to hold the weight from falling. Engineers generally view this as the point of unity, a situation where the "factor of safety" to falling of the pendulum is at one. Applying this analogy to slope stability, gravity action upon unbalanced soil loading exceeded the shear resistance of shallow to moderate depth soils, leading to failure of past construction along the embankment face, resulting in collapse of prior built timber crib retaining walls. Moving forward, we believe the embankment at your property is relatively stable based on our stability assessment of soil strata obtained from project borings. Furthermore, we conclude that the ongoing movement observed over the last decade results from saturation of any remaining sand fill placed for prior project at site. Your removal of sand fill and associated debris, and the installation of horizontal drains as discussed above should preclude future shallow sloughing along the face of the embankment. We provide a more detailed review of embankment stability within other section of this report. Page 3 of 21 r£)Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 Site / Project Description Construction of the BLR will occur at parcel as defined by location listed within Table 1, a property on the southwest shore of Pelican Lake, Otter Tail County, Minnesota. Table 1 also lists proposed construction for the BLR. Table 1: Project & Site Description Item Description Multi-level, wood framed lake residence founded on conventional frost footings and grade beam supported by helical piers. Main Floor: 1337.0 feet USGS [100.0 ft project datum]. Basement Level: 1328.0 feet USGS [91.0 ft project datum]. Nearly level at BLR. Approximately 60 to 65 feet vertical from lake surface to crest of embankment. Nominal 9 feet to basement level with an additional 5 feet to base of frost protected footings. Yes - Basement Yes - Integral with basement construction. BLR: 46 deg, 41 min, 40 sec N latitude by 96 deg, 4 min, 13.3 sec W longitude. Current embankment above BLR has experienced shallow to moderate depth shear and instability resulting from past construction of timber framed retaining walls backfilled with sand. Majority of this debris was previously removed in restoration of land surface. The present lower, benched embankment near lake shore [I.e. BLR site] includes prior placed undocumented and uncontrolled fill placed to stabilize failed embankment. Varied: Wild seeded, grass cover of prior failed embankment includes native woody plants and tree cover for stabilizing of ground surface. Lawn and rip-rap protected shoreline provided for lower benched profile at BLR. A restored, rip-rap protected shoreline extending to nominal 30 feet wide benched profile occurring at toe of steep, natural embankment. Building Type: Floor Elevations: Maximum Change in Site Elevation: Depth of Excavation at Site: Below Grade Foundation Walls Retaining Wall Construction Location of Project (coordinates) Existing Land Use / Improvements to Parcel Current Ground Cover Topography at Site 2.2 Scope of Services The purpose of this report is to present a summary of our geotechnical exploration and provide generalized opinions and recommendations regarding the soil conditions and design parameters for founding of the project. Our "scope of services" was limited to the following: 1. Explore the project subsurface by means of three standard penetration borings extending to maximum depth of 86 feet, and conduct laboratory tests on representative samples to characterize the engineering and index properties of the soils. Page 4 of 21 Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 2.Prepare a report presenting our findings from our field exploration, laboratory testing, and engineering recommendations for further stabilizing the existing embankment. Additional recommendations relative to the BLH include depth and allowable bearing capacity of conventional frost footings, construction of helical pier supported grade beam construction in support of structure rear wall, estimate of settlements, ground support of floor slab, methods for advancing project excavation, placement and compaction of engineered fill, and potential construction difficulties related to excavation, backfilling and drainage. Page 5 of 21 Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 3.0 EXPLORATION PROGRAM RESULTS 3.1 Exploration Scope Site geotechnical drilling occurred on June 2, 3 and 6, 2016 with individual borings advanced at approximate locations as presented on the diagram within the appendices. NTI located the borings relative to existing site features per limitation relative to access for drilling of borings. We established the approximate elevation of borings by comparison of GPS coordinates to the public domain LIDAR survey of the Pelican Lake area within the Red River of the North drainage basin [by International Water Institute]. 3.2 Surface Conditions The BLR property includes residential structure positioned approximately 125 feet west of crest of embankment, and of local site improvements associated with use lower benched profile positioned close to Pelican Lake. An upper patio deck occurs near south side of embankment scarp adjacent to heavily wooded area of parcel while a boardwalk stairway extending from lower benched location climbs embankment face along the north side of embankment scarp. Prior site owner included prior positioning of upper lake residence near crest of embankment and was in process of installing an extensive wood cribbed, switchback wall system for access to lake level. This construction failed with saturation by heavy summer rainfall event with failure extending to near surface native soils along embankment face. Post purchase of property, Contractor retained by Mr. Ace Brandt removed in stages the timber debris and sand fill from the lower two thirds of embankment. This contractor also regraded exposed ground and established present vegetation occurring on embankment. We understand Mr. Brandt also relocated main lake residence westward from original position as precaution to any future movement of embankment. Presently, the lower portion of embankment has experienced minimal downslope movement other than as secondary impact associated with upper third of embankment face failing locally with saturation of sand fill that remains below contoured lawn. Antidotal discussion by Mr. Brandt indicated the removal of several thousand cubic yards of debris, sand fill, and soil above embankment crest as prior corrective action at site. Currently surface drainage appears to flow overland to and down embankment face. The elevation change between NTI borings is nominal 53 feet. 3.3 Subsurface Conditions Please refer to the boring logs within the appendices for a detailed description and depths of stratum at each boring. The boreholes were backfilled with auger cuttings, or were abandoned using high solids bentonite or neat cement grout as per appropriate local and state statutes. Minor settlement of the boreholes will occur. Owner is responsible for final closure of the boreholes. Page 6 of 21 Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 Based on results of the current geotechnical exploration, appended Table 2 provides a general depiction of subsurface conditions at the project site. We present additional comment on the evaluation of recovered soil samples within the report attachments. 3.4 Ground Water Conditions The drill crew observed the borings for ground water and noted cave-in depth of the borings, if any, during and at the completion of drilling activities. We did not record measurable ground water readings during or at completion of project borings. However, we note that soil samples recovered as part of project borings were moist. Table 3 presents observation and measurement of ground water and cave-in during and/or at completion of the borings. Overall, site clays are conducive to slow movement of ground water both laterally and vertically while sand fill buried on site (upper crest of embankment) can readily allow movement of ground water resulting in high "pore water pressure" conditions near granular fill(s). The moisture content of such soils can vary annually and per recent precipitation. Such soils and other regional dependent conditions may produce ground water entry of project excavations. We direct your attention to other report sections and appendices attachments concerning ground water issues and subsurface drainage. 3.5 Laboratory Test Program We base our analysis and report recommendations upon our interpretation of the standard penetration resistance determined while sampling soils, hand penetrometer test results obtained during classification of retained soils, and experience with similar soils from other sites near the project. We summarize such tests per attached boring logs and/.or attached test forms. Page 7 of 21 r£)Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 4.0 ENGINEERING REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS We base our recommendations on present knowledge of the project and ask that you or your design team notify us immediately if you make changes to the size, location of design of the BLR structure. Similarly, you must notify NTI immediately if you choose to change or implement other corrective action relative to the embankment improvements. This notification provides NTI opportunity to review changes relative to this report and allows development of alternative recommendations based on changes to project. 4.1 Project Scope We understand the BLR will include concrete foundation walls and footings for support of above grade construction. Table 2 presents our premise of foundation loads and chance in grade for the referenced project. Our assessment of project soils, opinions, and report recommendations are based directly on application of estimated structural loads to site soils. Table 2: Foundation Loads / Change in Grade / Footing Elevation Footing Base Elevation [Project Datum] Footing Elevation [USGS Datum]Load / ConditionBuilding Element Lakeside Perimeter Strip Footings Basement Interior Strip Footings Landside Perimeter Grade Beam 2 kips per lineal foot [klf]86 ft 1323 ft 3 klf 89 ft 1326 ft 2 klf 97 ft 1334 ft Less than one foot at BLR. Anticipated 10 to 15 feet of soil removal extending from to 40 feet rearward of embankment crest. 1328 ft (lakeside) 1337 ft (rear of building) Change in Overall Site Grade (from original ground) 91 ft (lakeside) 100 ft (rear of building) Basement Excavation (from Final Grade)90.5 ft (bottom of slab)Approximately nine feet 1327.5 ft 4.2 Site Preparation - BLR Structure Project construction, as proposed, will involve stripping of the site and implementation of corrective grading. We recommend removal of all UU Fill and/or any unsuitable material(s) encountered during advancement of project excavations. Our field exploration indicates removal of UU Fill should result in excavations extending from approximately three feet to 9 feet below existing grade. We recommend that you oversize all earthwork improvements and excavations where fill materials are placed below foundations. The minimum excavation oversize should extend per the requirements outlined on appended figure "Excavation Oversize". Additional excavation will be necessary to achieve frost protection of footing construction, and may be necessary to remove desiccated clays or clay soils of higher swell potential. Table 3 presents summary of excavation necessary for the removal of unsuitable materials [at respective borings]. Pages of 21 Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 Note 1Table 3: Summary of Project Excavation Existing Ground Elevation (feet, NTI Datum) Estimated Excavation Elevation (feet) Boring Number Depth (feet) Unsuitable Soil / Material SB-1^1389.3 1383.0 - bench for support of drill, 1379.0 - existing 1336.4 Uncontrolled Fill (Fat Clay & Sand) Remove Gravelly Sand placed for support of drill and excavate underlying uncontrolled sand fill 23.3 2.5 (from existing) 1366.1 SB-2 1376.5 SB-3 9.0 Undocumented, uncontrolled fill [Sandy Clay & Sand] 1327.4 Note 1: Refer to report for excavation at, and within, the vicinity of the soil borings. Note 2: Deep excavation at and rear of embankment crest necessary to remove debris and undocumented, uncontrolled fill associated with prior wood cribbed, retaining wall construction. Final grade at of this area of site to occur by placement of engineered lean clay fill to USGS elevation varying from 1370 to 1389 feet. You must pump seepage from excavations continuously until the Geotechnical Engineer of Record or their designated representative determines such seepage no longer affects bearing soils, engineered fill system, backfill system or soils and concrete placement. The Geotechnical Engineer of Record or their designated representative must review project excavations to verify removal of unsuitable material(s), and determine exposed soils provide adequate bearing support of proposed construction. All such observations must occur prior to the placement of engineering fill, or construction of footings and floor slabs. Construction activities can weaken and/or displace native soils and any fill installed for support of footings (if required). You should consider and, when necessary, place lean concrete "mud slab" below footing and floor slab construction should site conditions become disturbed, or if supporting soils are wet. This placement will reduce loss of foundation support and minimize future removal of disturbed soil. The lean concrete for the "mud slab" should consist of a cementitious sand slurry mixture designed to provide a 28 - day compressive strength on the order or slightly in excess of 300 pounds per square inch (psi). Compressive strengths below this threshold can result in premature failure of the protective system. Compressive strengths significantly in excess of this threshold make installation of staking and plumbing / electrical systems difficult. Slump of the lean concrete mixture should range between 5 and 7 inches. While not mandatory, you should consider and place geotextile separation fabric below footing and floor slab construction, especially at locations lacking above "mud slab" or at other areas with excessive soil disturbance. The Geotechnical Engineer of Record or their designated representative should determine the need for geotextile placement after observation of completed excavations. We present recommendations for materials and placement of geotextile within attachment provided within the report appendices. Engineered fill for overall corrective earthwork and for support of project perimeter footings should consist of native, non-organic clay. Engineered fill placed interior to and above the base of perimeter frost footings should consist of granular soils that comply with the material properties listed for granular fill placement below floor slab construction. Page 9 of 21 Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 Unless otherwise directed specifically within this report, you should temper engineered fill for correct moisture content and then place and compact individual lifts of engineered fill to criteria as presented within the specific appendices attachment provided for compaction of material. 4.3 Site Preparation -Existing Embankment In our opinion, it is critical that your first step of construction at site implement final corrective grading of the upper third of embankment face removing any remaining granular fill or debris that exists on site. Soil boring SB-1 implies that corrective grading could be as deep as 24 feet below existing ground (approx. USGS elevation 1366 feet). You should note it is likely the extent and depth of this grading will be variable. Upon removal of granular fill and debris, we recommend you contour the exposed clay subgrade providing a nearly level profile with "stair-stepped", two - foot maximum height profile occurring at steep side slopes and base of the corrected area. This removal is necessary to eliminate the granular sand fill at crest of embankment. Similarly, the shaped grading of exposed native clays is required for optimizing shear strength along the interface between underlying native clays and newly placed engineered clay fill. We then recommend that you import sandy lean clay as engineered fill placement to final subgrade elevation. You may then establish topsoil cover and a deep rooted, native prairie grass cover for that portion of crest and embankment disturbed by project grading. We direct you to other report discussion concerning corrective earthwork at embankment crest. As completed, we anticipate the final graded surface (with topsoil) will vary from USGS elevation 1370 at crest to USGS elevation 1390 feet, nominal 160 feet westward at interface with existing lawn. We direct you to attached Figure IB. 4.4 Global Stability of Excavation / Embankment Initial stability analysis of embankment occurred using conservative low estimates of strength for the varied soil strata as delineated by NTI borings advanced for project. Our review of the preliminary results in meeting with Mr. Brandt, Thomlinson and Sons, and BHH Partners indicated opportunity for improve embankment stability via removal of soils at and rear of crest, and of staged excavation and construction of foundations for the BLR structure. Laboratory derived strength parameters for soil strata at site suggest improved shear strength of formation from that originally estimated for project. Thus, final assessment of embankment stability implies stable conditions of present embankment, and further improved stability of embankment with completion of recommended site improvements [excludes shallow sloughing and shear due to UU soils presently within upper third of embankment profile). For our analysis of stability, a premise for sequential conditions on sit is a follows: 1) Existing embankment under present conditions, 2) Existing embankment after completion of removal of UU Soil and regrading at and west of embankment crest, and 3) Same conditions as Stage 2, with soil excavation at proposed BLR structure completed. Page 10 of 21 r£)Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 Appended Figures lA through 1C depict premise of subsurface soil strata for the three stages of improvement. Table 9 presents our estimate of strength of soil strata for the End of Construction [UU], for a transitional long - term case [CD], and for long term, static condition [CD]. We graphically depict most probable location of shear interface and corresponding factor of safety for stability by appended Figures 2A-2C [Stage 1], 3A-3C [Stage 2], and 4A-4C [Stage 3], and as summary by appended Table 10. We note that the shear profile and corresponding factor of safety for stability obtained under the U-U assessment implies movement below and beyond the lateral bounds of the soil strata of model. This implies we would need to extrapolate both extent and depth of soil strata outside of borings advanced for project. We conclude such action is unnecessary due to findings for the erroneous U-U assessment excess unity and, where noted, exceed non-binding US Army Corps of Engineers goal for the "End of Construction" condition. Soil response to site grading and excavation activities will undergo translation with consolidation. This transitional condition typically represents a critical period for which unstable situations can occur on a project site. We note that the shear profile and corresponding factor of safety for stability obtained under this C-U assessment implies movement of the soils mass, if occurring, would be shallower than that depicted by the U-U assessment. Specifically, conceptual shear surfaces for the C-U assessment generally occur slightly below the basement level of the BLR structure and/or at the toe of the steep embankment profile. Such shear surfaces generally extend laterally and then upward terminating approximately 25 feet west of the new crest proposed for embankment [as per proposed soil removal and grading at top of embankment]. All three C-U stability findings [Figures 3A, 3B, 3C] exceed the USCOE recommended 1.4 minimum typical of embankment review. We conclude the shear surfaces depicted by the C-U stability assessment are more likely to occur based on understanding of deeper soils having higher shear strength, and per observation of natural ground surface and past shear failures occurring at similar properties occurring near project site. The long term stability of embankment per static conditions is assessed by review of embankment using C-D soil strength (static conditions imply no change in loading, further consolidation of soil strata, or development of excess pore water pressures within soil strata). Appended Figures 4A, 4B and 4C depict likely shear surface and corresponding factor of safety of C-D soil strength conditions for each of the three stages of construction proposed at site. Note that factor of safety relative to the existing embankment [Fig 4A] is nominal 1.41 with corresponding factor of safety after removal of soil from crest of embankment rising to 1.45 [Fig 4B]. We would expect such improvement in stability as lesser mass of soil is shearing along noted profiles. However, under the third stage of construction, the factor of safety for C-D soil strength drops to nominal 1.43 [Fig 4C]. Again, this finding is anticipated and reflects lesser resisting force provided at toe of conceptual shear surface. All three C-D stability findings [Figures 4A, 4B, 4C] exceed the USCOE recommended 1.4 minimum typical of embankment review. This review of stability for C-D soil strength implies that conditions occurring at toe of embankment, such as excavation and construction of the BLR structure will lessen stability of embankment. You should require Contractor implement precautions to limit such losses. Page 11 of 21 a;;:)Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 4.5 Shallow Foundations - BLR Structure We base the following bearing recommendations on our understanding of the project. You should notify us of any changes made to the project size, location, design, or site grades so we can assess how such changes influence present recommendations pertaining to project. It is our premise foundation elements will impose maximum vertical loads as previously noted within this report. We understand base of project footing construction will occur as listed within Table 1. In our opinion, you may support the proposed BLR by founding strip footings and interior column footings on competent, non-organic native soils, or engineered fill, providing such construction complies with the criteria established within this report. You should support exterior foundations at a common elevation within soils of the same strata, when possible. You must support all perimeter footings by cohesive soils to limit migration of seepage interior to the building perimeter. You may base design of footings on the Table 4 maximum net allowable soil bearing pressures. You must extend footing construction below ground (exposed slab) surface for protection against frost action. For this project, you should extend at-grade footing construction within permanently heated areas (60S Fahrenheit or above) to no less than five feet below final grades as protection against frost action. Similarly, you should extend at-grade footings to a minimum of seven feet below the exterior ground surface in areas lacking permanent heat. Intermediate founding of footings between the two referenced depths may be necessary for areas with moderate temperature and/or intermittent heating. Table 4: Recommended Maximum Net Allowable Soil Bearing Pressure - Conventional Shallow Foundation Construction NotelLocationCriterio Maximum of 2,500 pounds per square foot [psf] Perimeter strip footings and perimeter column footing supported on natural soils or engineered fill below depth of frost penetration, and at an elevation as referenced within this report. Interior strip and interior column footings supported on natural, competent soils and/or engineered fill at a depth which provides no less than 6 inches of clearance between the top of footing and underside of floor slab (for sand cushion). Basement perimeter strip and perimeter column footings supported on natural, competent soils and/or engineered fill occurring no less than 2 feet below top of at-grade basement floor, or at depth of frost for heated conditions, whichever is greater. Perimeter Strip Footings; At-Grade Construction interior Strip Footings: At- Grade Construction Maximum of 2,500 psf Basement Perimeter Strip Footings [see Report for discussion on basement] Maximum of 2,500 psf 1. The maximum net allowable soil bearing pressure recommendations predicated on footing design and construction complying with report recommendations. To minimize local failure of supporting soils, it is our opinion footing construction must also comply with the International Building Code (IBC) requirements with minimum strip footing width established per light frame construction requirements of Table 1809.7 Note you may utilize alternative means of protection footings against frost action from the above recommendations. The most prevalent method for this alternative projection include placement of vertical and horizontal insulation of ground abutting structure. Special considerations including adequate soil cover and protection to degradation by petroleum contact must be included in any such alternative design. Page 12 of 21 Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 We previously noted clay soils have risk of swell with absorption of moisture. This is especially true when clay soils absorb excess runoff, pooled within excavations. Partially constructed foundations, foundation of reduced confining load, and more importantly, lightly loaded on-grade floor construction may heave due to clay soil swell. You should maintain constant automated subsurface drainage of the construction site to reduce this risk of heaved foundations. Foundation walls for basement area or area of unbalanced earthen fill will experience lateral loading from retained soils. You may model this lateral loading as an equivalent earth pressure applied to the foundation wall providing site geometric and related conditions comply with the parameters supporting such modeling. We recommend you base design of such walls on the Table 5 "at-rest equivalent fluid earth pressures". Table 5: Retained Soil - Equivalent Fluid Weight / Coefficient of Friction Equivalent Fluid Unit Weight of Retained Soil^ "At Rest" Condition (pcf) Friction Factor for Sliding Resistance ^ "Active" Condition (pcf) "Passive Condition (pcf)Soil Type Sand (SP, SP-SM) Lean Clay [CL] 0.577 0.445 63 42 250 80 57 213 We based our equivalent fluid weight recommendations solely on assumed conditions with respect to sloping ground and/or surcharge loads. We caution design professional that actual loads imparted to the structure will be dependent on soil conditions, site geometric considerations and surcharge loads imparted to structure. The determination of resistance to sliding determined based on multiplication of the respective coefficient of friction by the effective vertical stress occurring at the elevation of interest. 1 2 4.6 Bearing Factor of Safety - BLR Structure We estimate native soils provide a nominal three factor of safety against localized bearing failure when construction complies with report criteria and recommendations, and you design structure footings using the Table 4 maximum net allowable soil bearing recommendation(s). Note that this estimate simple bearing factor of safety does not address and is not intended to represent overall factor of safety for site, excavation(s), or foundations supported by the overall soil mass below site [i.e. does not represent shear stability of site]. We direct you to other report discussion concerning such issue. 4.7 Estimate of Settlement - BLR Structure Settlement of project will include mass consolidation of the site from additional soil placement, and individual settlement of footings of varied structural loading. We estimate mass settlement of the site to vary from 1/2 to 1 inch inches with dissipation of excess pore water pressure within the native clay and silt alluvium soils. Overall, we anticipate this movement should have minimal impact to your BLR project with exception of variable shear loading and displacement of underground utilities extending to/from service lines [i.e. from well, to septic holding tank]. The settlement of structure footings and floor slab will vary based on the magnitude, frequency of application, and duration of applied loading to individual footings. For your project, we estimate the elastic movement and consolidation settlement of footing construction will likely vary as outlined within Table 6 Page 13 of 21 Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 with this movement dependent on discussion as of this report. Note that the Table 6 findings reflect a sum of elastic and consolidation settlement for respective footing. The differential settlements as listed within Table 6 reflect likely movement occurring between heavily loaded interior column footing and adjacent lightly loaded strip footing, unless otherwise noted. We anticipate settlement of the at-grade floor should be less than Vi inch as referenced to movement of the structure [i.e. does not address or include mass movement of site due to soil placement]. Furthermore, total and differential movement of footings and floor slabs could be significantly greater than the above estimates if you support construction on frozen soils, the moisture content of the bearing soils significantly changes from insitu conditions, and snow or ice lenses become incorporated within earthwork. Notes 1Table 6: Estimated Settlement of Shallow Foundations (footings) Est. Total Settlement Est. Differential SettlementLocation 1/2 to 1 inch 1/2 to 1 inch 1/2 to 1 inch 1/4 to 3/4 inch 1/4 to 3/4 inch 1/4 to 3/4 inch Perimeter Strip Footings interior Strip Footings Basement Strip Footings (interior to periphery) Unless noted otherwise, we based our estimate of settiements on likely long - term service loads as applied to respective footings designed for the Table 4 maximum net ailowable soil bearing pressure recommendation(s) and per other recommendations of this report. 4.8 Subsurface Drainage - BLR Structure and Embankment While not necessarily required for this project, you should install subsurface drainage at the base of basement foundation walls, or at-grade foundation walls to limit moisture accumulation within granular soils placed below interior floors. You should also consider placement of a separate subsurface drainage system exterior to perimeter foundation walls. As a general guideline, subsurface drainage consists of a geotextile and coarse drainage encased slotted or perforated pipe extending to sump basin(s) [see appended Figure B and Figure Cfor conceptual subsurface drainage along perimeter foundation walls]. We recommend that you separate exterior drainage from interior drainage to reduce risk of cross flow and moisture infiltration below structure interior. The project Architect and/or Structural Engineer of Record should determine actual need for subsurface drainage. The removal of excess ground water from embankment soils is critical for improving stability of present embankment. We thus recommend that you install no less than three tiers of horizontal drainage wells (four wells per tier) across the face of the embankment. The horizontal wells should consist of a continuous screened section installed laterally no less than 30 feet into the face of the embankment. You should provide no less than six inches of well - graded, coarse sand as a filter pack around each four-inch diameter well placed for drainage. You should consider connecting each tier of horizontal wells to a collection manifold for eventual piped conveyance to base of embankment. Further consulting on horizontal well installation at your site is necessary and we recommend that you retain specialty contactor to assist in such discussion. Page 14 of 21 Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 4.9 Utilities - BLR Structure Placement of underground utilities typically includes granular bedding for support of piped systems. Placement of granular soils within underground utility construction promotes migration of subsurface moisture towards and below the bearing stratum of footing construction. This, in turn, can lead to moisture uptake by native clays producing heave of construction, loss of shear strength and/or differential settlement of footing and floors. Therefore, we recommend that you eliminate placement of all granular bedding soils within 10 feet of project excavations creating a zone where cohesive soils or lean concrete [i.e. controlled density fill] is used for all soil replacement within utility trenches. This "zone of control" should significantly reduce moisture migration below the project foundations. You must place and compact this replacement clay per compaction and moisture requirements recommended for fill within utility trench construction. In lieu of placing clay soils within the above referenced "zone of control", you may provide alternate means of interception and blockage of drainage along site utilities, thus minimizing moisture migration into and below structure foundation and floors. You should place wetter soils from depth in the lower portion of utility trench construction while the placement of dryer soils from near ground surface should occur in upper most portion of trench fill. You should temper the utility trench fill for correct moisture content and then place and compact individual lifts of trench fill to criteria established within the report appendices. There is a high probability that fine and coarse alluvium laminations occur within site soils and may be present along utility trench excavations. Such formations and other regional dependent soil conditions may be water bearing. While it is our opinion small pumps should handle seepage resulting from utility construction, we caution that interception of a major "water bearing" stratum may result in significantly greater seepage into utility excavations. Therefore, we recommend that you include provisions within construction document for pumping of seepage from utility excavations. We understand you intend to install a separate well for potable water supply for the BLR with this located on the north - northwest side of structure. A licensed specialty well contractor should provide design and installation of well for the BLR. We suggest you consider whether present project provides future access to the well location for any maintenance. You have indicated septic system will consist of a holding tank installed south-southeast of the BLR structure with treatment provided by pumped delivery uphill to an expanded drain field presently utilized by main structure at property. We recommend that piping for this pumped delivery consist of a high density polyethylene (HOPE) pipe installed via directional bore occurring below frost depth [frost depth of seven feet for this construction). Furthermore, the directional bore of sanitary piping should transit south sufficient distance necessary for maintaining a lateral 50 - foot minimum buffer from known shear scarp of embankment. We welcome questions concerning our recommendations for pumped sanitary sewer of the BLR structure. Page 15 of 21 Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 4.10 Slab-on-Grade Floors - BLR Structure Our borings indicate poor soils within the project interior and recommend removal of all unsuitable soils and materials as previously recommended for structure footings. We understand finished floor will be set at or near the prior referenced elevation and, conclude construction of at-grade floors of the main level will require fill placement interior to the structure perimeter. Subgrade preparation will need to establish a stable base for support of floor construction. The native soils underlying the Undocumented, Uncontrolled Fill can lose structural capacity with uptake of moisture, are easily disturbed, and may rut with excessive movement of construction equipment across bare ground. Thus, we recommend that you install geotextile separation fabric between the exposed cohesive soils and any aggregate section supporting floors. It is our opinion this geotextile should consist of a polypropylene yarn based fabric with the Table 7 properties: Table 7: Geotextile Separation Fabric Properties Note 1ParameterRequirement Base Yarn Polypropylene 40-80 95 gal/min/sf 50 lbs Apparent Opening Size [AOS, US. Sieve] Permitivity [gal/min/sq. ft CH, ASTM D 4491] Grab Tensile Strength [lbs, %, ASTM D 4632] 1. All physical strength properties are minimum average roll values [MARV], unless noted otherwise. Fill placement from native soils to within 6 inches of the bottom of floor slab should consist of granular material conforming to the Table 8 mechanical analysis [i.e. main floor]. You must temper the granular material for correct moisture, place eight - inch maximum depth loose lifts, and compact the granular material to criteria established within the appendices attachment. Table 8: Mechanical Analysis of Granular Fill for Floor Slab Construction Percent Passing (by dry weight of material)U.5. Sieve Designation 'A inch 100% 95-100 90-100 % No. 4 10 70-90 50-70 20-40 10-20 2-10 20 40 100 200 Fill placement within 6 inches of the bottom of floor slab [at-grade or basement level] should consist of a granular fill conforming to the Table 8 mechanical analysis requirements occurring below the #4 US Sieve opening with additional requirement that the material passing the #200 US Sieve opening should conform to a 2 to 5% requirement for percent passing. You must temper the moisture content of the sand cushion Page 16 of 21 f£)Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 to the same limiting values as defined for interior granular fill. As placed, the sand cushion should be compacted until there is no more visually discernible settlement. You may design of the floor slab based on an estimated subgrade reaction modulus (k) of 150 Ibs/in^ providing a minimum of 36 inches of granular fill supports floor construction. Otherwise, we recommend you use a subgrade reaction modulus of 50 Ibs/in^ for design of at grade or basement floor slab. While it is our opinion that you reinforce floor slab construction, the Structural Engineer of Record should establish need for reinforcement of at-grade concrete floors. All interior at-grade floors with impervious or near impervious surfacing such as, but not limited to, paint, hardening agent, vinyl tile, ceramic tile, or wood flooring, should include provision for installation of a vapor barrier system. Historically, vapor barrier systems can consist of many different types of synthetic membrane with placement either below sand cushion materials or at the underside of the concrete floor. All such issues are contentious and have both positive and negative aspects associated with performance of floor. Overall, we recommend you install some form of vapor barrier below the project at-grade floor. You should isolate floor slabs from other building components. It is our opinion such isolation should include installation of a'A inch thick expansion joint between the floor and walls, and/or columns to minimize binding between construction materials. This construction should also include application of a compatible sealant after curing of the floor slab to reduce moisture penetration though the expansion joint. As a minimum, you should install bond breaker to isolate and reduce binding of building components. We previously noted risk of heave of on-grade floor slab construction if exposed clay soils absorb excess moisture. We direct your attention to the appendices attachment on Swell of Clay Soils. 4.11 Exterior Backfill - BLR Structure Exterior fill placement around the foundation and associated final grading adjacent to the building will influence structure. While not necessarily required for this project, you should install subsurface drainage at the base of basement foundation walls, or at-grade foundation walls to limit moisture accumulation within granular soils placed below interior floors. You should also place separate subsurface drainage system exterior to perimeter foundation walls. As a general guideline, such drainage consists of a geotextile and coarse drainage encased slotted or perforated pipe extending to sump basin(s). We recommend that you separate exterior drainage from interior drainage to reduce risk of cross flow and moisture infiltration below structure interior. The project Architect and/or Structural Engineer of Record should determine actual need for subsurface drainage. Exterior backfill of at-grade foundations walls should consist of native, non-organic soils for at-grade construction. You should place exterior backfill against at-grade foundation walls concurrent with interior backfill to minimize differential loading, rotation and/or movement of the wall system. Conversely, placement of backfill against basement foundation walls or walls with unbalanced earthen fill must occur in a controlled means to limit lateral displacement or damage of completed wall(s). We recommend that you require Contractor submit detailed "step by step" basis for construction of basement foundation walls. Page 17 of 21 Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 Exterior backfill for basement foundation walls and/or retaining walls consist of a native, coarse alluvium or "pit run" granular soil with a fine content equal to or less than 12 percent passing the No. 200 US Sieve opening (i.e. fill extending to within two feet of final grade). The final one and one half to two feet of exterior backfill within lawn areas should consist of clay and topsoil while exterior backfill below sidewalks and pavements should consist of a free draining aggregate base as recommended for the respective construction. You should temper all backfill for correct moisture content and then place and compact individual lifts of exterior backfill per criteria presented within the appendix attachment. You must limit placement of exterior backfill until Contractors lateral restraint of the foundation walls complies with the minimum criteria established by Structural Engineer. Final grading of exterior backfill should provide sufficient grade for positive drainage from structure. We presented within other report section recommendations for final grading. 4.12 Surface Drainage and Vegetative Cover - BLR Structure and Embankment You should maintain positive drainage during and after construction of project and eliminate ponding of water on site soils. We recommend you include provisions within construction documents for positive drainage of site. You should install sumps at critical areas around project to assist in removal of seepage and runoff from site. We present recommendations for sump construction within appendices attachment. You should maintain the moisture content of site clays as close to existing as possible as excessive changes can cause shrinkage or expansion of the soil, and lead to distress of construction. We understand limited sidewalks and lawn will direct drainage from structure. You should grade exterior to slope from building(s). We recommend that you provide a five percent gradient within ten feet of building for drainage from lawn, and two percent minimum gradient from building for drainage of sidewalks / pavements. All pavements should drain to on-site storm collection, municipal collection system, or roadside ditching. You should direct roof runoff from building by a system of rain gutters, down spouts, and below grade solid piping directing runoff from the building site. Vegetation planting near structures can result in a change in soil moisture content from moisture uptake by the plants or excessive watering of plantings. The resulting change in soil moisture contributes to lateral earth pressure development and frost related heave of local soils. You should eliminate planting of trees or shrubs within ten feet of the structures as a cautionary measure to reduce the seasonal fluctuation of soil moisture. Drainage from your upper lawn should flow overland to a dense, native vegetative cover strip consisting of tall prairie grass, forbes, and woody shrubs such as sumac. This buffer will provide basis for the capture of any fines suspected within the runoff. The buffer will also provide opportunity to lessen velocity of runoff, reduce runoff due to uptake be plantings, and improve infiltration of runoff to near surface soil. Drainage of embankment face should include moisture uptake by dense vegetative cover similar to that provided at buffer along embankment crest. You should also plant trees along the embankment face for improved cover and development of deeper rooting within surface soil. We recommend you consult an arborist on tree plantings provided along face of embankment. Page 18 of 21 Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Excavation Stability / Person in Charge Excavation depth and sidewall inclination should not exceed those specified in local, state or federal regulations. You may need to widen and slope, or temporary brace excavations, to maintain or develop a safe work environment. An independent licensed Professional Engineer must design any temporary shoring or bracing necessary for the safety of project excavations. Contractor(s) must comply with local, state, and federal safety regulations including current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards as outlined within Subpart P, Chapter 7, 29CFR 1926.6 of the Federal Register. We based our report stability findings on premise with respect to loading, site conditions, ground water issues, and likely extent of work / surcharge conditions as listed. It is not our intent that such findings reflect stability of actual excavations advanced for project, or that our findings imply safe operations relative to 29 CFR 1926.6 as referenced above. Contractor is solely responsible per "means and methods" for ascertaining stability of embankments / excavations, or any other work occurring on site. 5.2 Engineered Fill & Winter Construction The Geotechnical Engineer of Record or their designated representative must observe and evaluate excavations to verify removal of uncontrolled fills, topsoil and/or unsuitable material(s), and adequacy of bearing support of exposed soils. Such observation should occur prior to construction of foundations or placement of engineered fill supporting excavations. NTI, the company's officers and professional engineers are not responsible for issues resulting from undocumented site conditions. The Geotechnical Engineer of Record or their designative representative must evaluate engineered fill for moisture content, mechanical analysis and/or Atterberg limits prior to placement. You must temper engineered fill for correct moisture content and then place and compact individual lifts of engineered fill to criteria established by this report. You must not use frozen soil as engineered fill or backfill nor should you support foundations on frozen soils [inclusive of ice]. Moisture freezing within the soil matrix of fine grained and/or cohesive soils produces ice lenses. Such soils gain moisture from capillary action and, with continued growth, heave with formation of ice lenses within the soil matrix. Foundations constructed on frozen soils settle at or after thaw of ice lenses causing distress at minimum, or failure of construction. You should protect excavations and foundations from freezing conditions or accumulation of snow, and remove frozen soils, snow, and ice from within excavations, fill section or from below proposed foundations. Replacement soils should consist of similar materials as those removed from the excavation with moisture content, placement and compaction conforming to report criteria. Page 19 of 21 Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 5.3 Operation of Project Sumps We previously noted the importance of removal of seepage and runoff from project excavations. You must maintain temporary drainage of project excavations until such time that the Geotechnical Engineer of Record determines excess ground water pore pressure, seepage, and/or runoff no longer influences the strength or support of construction. We presented within appendices attachment typical recommendations for temporary project sumps. It is our intent that such recommendations solely provide general guideline of the minimum temporary drainage of project. It is our premise the Contractor is solely responsible for establishing the magnitude, type, and operation of subsurface drainage for project. Page 20 of 21 r£)Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelical Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 6.0 CLOSURE Our conclusions and report recommendations are predicated on Geotechnical Engineer of Record directing future observation and testing of corrective earthwork. We arrived at our opinions based on presumptive data collected from the site. Note that the collection of this data occurs from limited sampling of site conditions typical of geotechnical explorations performed for projects of similar scope. For this and other reasons, we do not warrant conditions between or below the depth of our borings, or that the strata logged from our borings are necessarily typical of the site. It shall be understood that any deviation(s) from our recommendations by plans, written specifications, or field applications shall relieve NTI of responsibility unless our written concurrence with such deviations has been established. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Brandt Holding Company for specific application to geotechnical support of referenced project at Pelican Lake, Otter Tail County, Minnesota. Northern Technologies, LLC has endeavored to comply with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practice common to the local area. Northern Technologies, LLC makes no other warranty, expressed or implied. Northern Technologies, LLC I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a Duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Bret R. Anderson, P.E. Principal J- Bret Anderson, P.E.Josh Holmes, P.E. Engineer Date: 7/7/2016 Reg. No. 20273 BRA:jh Attachments F:\PROJECTS\Geo\GEOREP 2016\Brandt Lake Residence Boat House & Slope Stability - Pelican Lake, MN\GEO REPORT - Brandt Lake Residence.docx Page 21 of 21 r£) APPENDIX A This page intentionally left blank. NotelTable 9: Laboratory Soil Parameters Used in Stability Analysis of Embankment / Excavation 2 1 2 Moist UnH Sot Unit Weight- V»t (pcf) Q(U-UTrktxial) d>(dag) H(C-V Triadatf O '(dag) S(C-OTriaxial) C'R(psf) O'n(deg) Weight C'lpsf)C(psf) Base Elevation (pcf)So//Type Lean Clay - Engineered Fill Fat Clay [Soil #1] 130.0127.0 1000 0 100 26 0 28 128.0 130.0 1400 0 1000 10 1200 0 [Shear} Varies for Ail Soil Strata [see Figures 141.4 lA-lC] Uncontrolled Sand Fill (Soil #2] Lean Clay - CL, CL-CH [Soil #3] Fat Clay [Soil #4] Sandy Lean Clay - Till (Soil #5] Clayey Sand - Till [Soil #6] 137.4 140.0 0 30 0 30 0 30 145.0 1300 0 180 29 0 30 130.0125.9 2000 0 250 30 0 32 144.0 2200 30141.4 0 250 0 32 150.3 152.0 1000 20 300 30 0 31 1 See report discussion and appended stability figures for comment concerning estimate of respective soil strata strength. Table 10: Summary of Slope Stability - Factors of Safety for Embankment ‘ End of Construction Est. UU Triaxial as Basis Long Term Est. CU Triaxial as Basis Ltmg Term Est. CO Triaxial as BasisSection 1.18 ' 1.40 ' 1.40^ Existing Embankment Existing Embankment with Regrading of Crest Existing Embankment with Regrading of Crest and Excavation for Structure [Fig2A] [ng2B] [Fig2C] [Fig 3A] (Fig3Bl [Fig 3C] 1.61 [Fig4AJ [Fig4B) [Fig4C] 1.41 1.70 1.45 1.63 1.43 US Army Corps of Engineers - Required Factor of Safety ^ [Note applicable to this project, for comparative purpose only] Minimum 1.3 Minimum 1.4 Minimum 1.4 1. Required factor of safety with respect to deep -seated global stability. Table 6-lb, U.S. Army Corps Engineering Manual "Design and Construction of Levees [EM 1110- 2-1913,30 April 2,000], pg. 6-5. As proposed project does not require design to COE certification, there is no required factor of safety necessary for proposed construction. Note however, NTT recommends that all factors of safety under most adverse conditions [i.e. red italic results] should exceed 1.1. Under such review, the existing embankment and two subsequent, sequential stages of site improvements provide adequate factor of safety with respect to global shear of embankment. Not such findings do not include or address shallow sloughing of soils due to saturation of existing undocumented - uncontrolled fill placed by prior property owner. See report and stability figures for additional discussion, depiction and associated factor of safety for "most probable location of shear interface". 2. Stability findings for UU-Triaxial assessment of embankment are approximate and subject to limitation relative to model of analysis. We anticipate actual stability of embankment under U-U soil strength likely greater than that shown. GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION OF RECOVERED SOIL SAMPLES We visually examined recovered soil samples to estimate color, distribution of grain sizes, plasticity, consistency, moisture condition, and presence of lenses and seams. We then classified the soils according to the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488). A chart describing this classification system and general notes explaining soil sampling procedures are presented within appendices attachments. The stratification depth lines between soil types on the logs are estimated based on the available data. Insitu, the transition between type(s) may be distinct or gradual in either the horizontal or vertical directions. The soil conditions have been established at our specific boring locations only. Variations in the soil stratigraphy may occur between and around the borings; with the nature and extent of such change not readily evident until exposed by excavation. These variations must be properly assessed when utilizing information presented on the boring logs. We request that you, your design team or contractors contact NTI immediately if local conditions differ from those assumed by this report, as we would need to review how such changes impact our recommendations. Such contact would also allow us to revise our recommendations as necessary to account for the changed site conditions. FIELD EXPLORATION PROCEDURES Soil Sampling - Standard Penetration Boring: Soil sampling was performed according to the procedures described by ASTM D-1586. Using this procedure, a 2 inch O.D. split barrel sampler is driven into the soil by a 140 pound weight falling 30 inches. After an initial set of six inches, the number of blows required to drive the sampler an additional 12 inches is recorded (known as the penetration resistance (i.e. "N-value") of the soil at the point of sampling. This N- value, as corrected for efficient of equipment operation is an index of the relative density of cohesionless soils and an approximation of the consistency of cohesive soils [i.e. Ngo]. Soil Sampling - Power Auger Boring: The boring(s) was/were advanced with a 6 inch nominal diameter continuous flight auger. As a result, samples recovered from the boring are disturbed, and our determination of the depth, extend of various stratum and layers, and relative density or consistency of the soils is approximate. Soil Classification: Soil samples were visually and manually classified in general conformance with ASTM D-2488 as they were removed from the sampler(s). Representative fractions of soil samples were then sealed within respective containers and returned to the laboratory for further examination and verification of the field classification. In addition, select samples were submitted for laboratory tests. Individual sample information, identification of sampling methods, method of advancement of the samples and other pertinent information concerning the soil samples are presented on boring logs and related report attachments. r£) General Notes DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS SYMBOL LABORATORY TEST SYMBOLS DEFINITIONDEFINITIONSYMBOL C.S.Continuous Sampling 2-3/8" Pipe Drill Cleanout Tube W Moisture content-percent of dry weight Dry Density-pounds per cubic foot Liquid and plastic limits determined in accordance with ASTM D 423, ASTM D 424 Unconfined compressive strength-pounds per square foot in accordance with ASTM D 2166-66 P.D.D CO.LL, PL 3 Yt" I.D. Hollow Stem Auger3HSA Qu 4" Diameter Flight Auger 6" Diameter Flight Auger 2 Yi" Casing 4" Casing Drilling Mud Jet Water Hand Auger Size NX Casing Size BX Casing Size AX casing 2" O.D. Split Spoon Sample 2" Thin Wall Tube Sample 3" Thin Wall Tube Sample 4 FA 6 FA 2/jC 4C Additional insertions in Qu Column D.M.Penetrometer reading-tons/square foot Torvane reading-tons/square foot Specific Gravity-ASTM D 854-58 Shrinkage limit - ASTM 427-61 Hydrogen ion content-meter method Organic content-combustion method Grain size analysis One dimensional consolidation Triaxial Compression * See attached data Sheet and/or graph_____ Pq j.W.sH.A.G NXC SL BXC pH AXC O SS M.A.* 2T C* 3T Qc* Water Level Symbol Water levels shown on the boring logs were determined at the time and under the conditions indicated. In sand, the indicated levels can be considered reliable for most site conditions. In clay soils, it is not possible to determine the ground water level within the normal scope of a test boring investigation, except where lenses or layers of more pervious water bearing soil are present; and then a long period of time may be necessary to reach equilibrium. Therefore, the position of the water level symbol for cohesive or mixed soils may not indicate the true level of the ground water table. The available water level information is given at the bottom of the log sheet. Descriptive Terminology DENSITY TERM CONSISTENCY TERM"Neo" VALUE "Nk," value Very Loose Loose Medium Dense Dense 0-4 Soft 0-4 5-8 Medium Rather Stiff 5-8 9-15 16-30 Over 30 9-15 16-30 Over 30 Stiff Very Dense Very Stiff Standard "Nm" Penetration: Blows per foot of a mechanical hammer using nominal 2 inch OD split spoon as corrected to reflect similar sampling using a Standard Safety Hammer.__________________________________________ Relative Proportions Particle Sizes TERMS RANGE MATERIAL DESTRIPTION US SIEVE SIZE Trace A little Some With 0-5%Boulders Gravel - Over 3" %"-3" #4-%" #4 -#10 #10 - #40 #40 - #200 Determined by plasticity characteristics. 5-15% 15-30% 30-50% Coarse Medium Coarse Medium Fine Sand - Silt and Clay Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes ASTM Designation D-2487 and D 2488 (Unified Soil Classification System) Group Symbol Classification CriteriaMajor Divisions Typical Name Well -graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines. Poorly graded gravels and gravel-sand mixtures, littie or no fines. Cu = D60 / DIO greater than 4. Cz = (D30)2 / (DIO X D60)GW between 1i§ %^ - 0) C ^ J2 o 6OJ z (5 S: -D o <u E .£ TO &3.ii Si y s cn ^ . qT u ^2 o i ^ 5 5 S ^ 13 O to GP Not meeting both criteria for GW materials.u* >.a Atterberg limits below "A line", or P.i. less than 4. Atterberg limits above “A line” with P.i. greater than 7. Atterberg limits plotting in hatched area are borderline classifications requiring use of dual symbols. tA Silty gravels, gravel-sand- silt mixtures. o IN GMt/t0) |l.E oi .£ > u-asClayey gravels, gravel- sand-day mixtures. (B . • ^S .. S 5 Qj 07 : A“ s g sSL- § SJr 9 ■ —o ° d ^ ■K I M I" I -o ^ « 15Spl! c Q. ^ fM O■2 SR S s IS c S =■ U c fT) >P 00 g m ^ y f- W O', C 6 3 ID u> O O O'u Ji 5 t !! GCo o Well-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines. "iro Cu = D60 / DIO greater than 6. a = (D30)2 / (DIO X D60) between 1 & 3. Si £I ^5 S swg'52 gOi oi c o °Z CO y g Poorly-graded sands and gravelly sands, little or no fines. £■B SP Not meeting both criteria for SW materials.u01 o Atterberg limits below "A line", or P.I. less than 4. Atterberg limits above "A line" with P.I. greater than 7. o uLO I/I— in Atterberg limits plotting in hatched area are borderline classifications requiring use of dual symbols. Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures.SMg s.5 s ■S -2 ^ LI. £OJ gV) o Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures.S SC Inorganic silts, very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands. MLVIA! o inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays. su ■g “S (TJ -M CL *^ M55 -■.S!V) O o-Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity. 3 ^OLd5z I SII Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sands or silts, elastic silts. gOB MH ^ q5J2fOUg(U "c 00 V"B Inorganic days of high plasticity, fat clays.CH^ .1o 55 -■5 Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. O'OHij .y c t/)■g) S ^Peat, muck and other highly organic soils. Pt I O r£) Excavation Oversize Excavation oversize facilitates distribution of load induced stress within supporting soils. Unless otherwise superseded by report specific requirements, all construction should conform to the minimum oversize and horizontal offset requirements as presented within the diagram and associated chart. Excavation BacJr Slope Refer tr Nofel Horixontat Ottaet A (Refer to Chart;< Backfm Surface « 5o»t Refer to report for specific matenal type and placement Ovaralxa Ratio H (Referto Charf] Structure and/or Baeement Uneuffable So/If (i e Excavated Maienais), Refer to Chart and report for requirements 1 Oapth D: Engineered Fill, Refer to report for matenal type and placement cniena Compatent SoUt (i e acceptable for support of embankmeit and structure), Referto report tor specific requirements Excavation Oversize Definitions Oversize Ratio H:The ratio of the horizontal distance divided by the engineered fill depth (i.e. tt Horizontal / Depth D). Refer to Chart for specific requirements. The horizontal distance between the outside edge of footing or critical position and the crest of the engineered fill section. Refer to Chart for specific requirements. Excavation depth and sidewall inclination should not exceed those specified in local, state or federal regulations including those defined by Subpart P of Chapter 27,29 CFR Part 1926 (of Federal Register). Excavations may need to be widened and sloped, or temporarily braced, to maintain or develop a safe work environment. Contractor is solely responsible for assessing stability under "means and methods". Horizontal Offset A: Note 1: Unsuitable Soil Type Horizontal Offset ACondition Oversize Ratio H Foundation Unit Load equal SP, SM soils, CL & CH to or less than 3,000 psf. soils with cohesion greater than 1,000 psf SP, SM soils, CL & CH soils with cohesion less than 1,000 psf Foundation Unit Load equal Topsoil or Peat to or less than 3,000 psf. Foundation Unit Load greater than 3,000 psf 2 feet or width of footing, whichever is greater Equal to or greater than one (1) times Depth D Foundation Unit Load greater than 3,000 psf 5 feet or width of footing, whichever is greater Equal to or greater than one (1) times Depth D 2 feet or width of footing, whichever is greater 5 feet or width of footing, whichever is greater Equal to or greater than two (2) times Depth D Equal to or greater than two (3) times Depth D Topsoil or Peat C£) This page intentionally left blank. GROUND WATER ISSUES The following presents additional comment and soil specific issues related to measurement of ground water conditions at your project site. Note that our ground water measurements, or lack thereof, will vary depending on the time allowed for equilibrium to occur in the borings. Extended observation time was not available during the scope of the field exploration program and, therefore, ground water measurements as noted on the borings logs may or may not accurately reflect actual conditions at your site. Seasonal and yearly fluctuations of the ground water level, if any, occur. Perched ground water may be present within sand and silt lenses bedded within cohesive soil formations. Groundwater typically exists at depth within cohesive and cohesionless soils. Documentation of the local ground water surface and any perched ground water conditions at the project site would require installation of temporary piezometers and extended monitoring due to the relatively low permeability exhibited by the site soils. We have not performed such ground water evaluation due to the scope of services authorized for this project. We anticipate pumps installed within temporary sumps should control subsurface seepage from perched conditions. However, we caution such seepage from such formations and any water entry from excavations below the ground water table may be heavy and will vary based on seasonal and annual precipitation, and ground related impacts in the vicinity of the project. r£) APPENDIX B 6£) GEOTEXTILE FABRIC and GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT Unless otherwise amended by report, we recommend installation of a geotextile separation fabric between the native soils and the engineered fill section below project foundations, floors and/or between a clay subgrade and aggregate base of pavement construction. It is our opinion this geotextile should consist of a non-woven, needle punched or woven, fabric conforming to the following tabulated parameters. Geotextile Separation Fabric Properties ^ Parameter Requirement Base Yarn Apparent Opening Size [AOS, US. Sieve] Permitivity [gal/min/sq. ft CH, ASTM D 4491] Grab Tensile Strength [lbs, %, ASTM D 4632] Polypropylene 40-70 110 160 lbs by 160 lbs at 50% by 50% strain 1. All physical strength properties are minimum average roll values [MARV], unless noted otherwise. We recommend that the geotextile panels be oriented parallel with proposed aggregate placement activities, and occur in such a manner that the overall number of individual panels are kept to a minimum. As placed, individual panels of geotextile should have a width equal to or greater than 12 feet. We recommend that the Contractor must overlap longitudinal and butt seams of adjacent panels a minimum of 18 inches with such joints oriented to follow initial construction traffic (shingles profile with traffic). Geogrid Reinforcement provided for support of permanent structural loads requires separate evaluation based on project specific conditions and applied loading. Such work is beyond the scope of findings as presented by this report. Unless otherwise amended by report. Geogrid Reinforcement for placement below pavements should consist of material and provide properties as outlined within the following tabulation. Geogrid Reinforcement of Aggregate Base Section ^ RequirementParameter Polypropylene Minimum 1.5 by 1.5, Maximum 1.75 by 1.75 Minimum 800 MD by 800 CD at 2% strain Minimum 1600 MD by 1,600 CD at 5% strain Minimum 2,000 MD by 2,000 CD at ultimate strain Minimum 41,000 MD by 41,000 CD at 2% strain Minimum 32,000 MD by 32,000 CD at 5% strain Base Yarn Aperture Size [inch by inch] Wide Width Tensile Strength [Ibs/ft, ASTM D 6637] Tensile Modulus [Ib/ft, ASTM D 6637 2. All physical strength properties are minimum average roll values [MARV], unless noted otherwise. The Table B geogrid should be placed above the above recommended geotextile separation fabric with individual 12 foot minimum width individual panels of geogrid reinforcement oriented parallel to major traffic movement. Side seams of geogrid reinforcement must be overlapped no less than 12 inches while butt seams of geogrid should be overlapped no less than 24 inches. r£) PLACEMENT and COMPACTION OF ENGINEERED FILL Unless otherwise superseded within the body of the Geotechnical Exploration Report, the following criteria shall be utilized for placement of engineered fill on project. This includes, but is not limited to earthen fill placement to improve site grades, fill placed below structural footings, fill placed interior of structure, and fill placed as backfill of foundations. Engineered fill placed for construction, if necessary should consist of natural, non-organic, competent soils native to the project area. Such soils may include, but are not limited to gravel, sand, or clays with Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D2488) classifications of GW, SP, SM, CL or CH. Use of silt or clayey silt as project fill will require additional review and approval of project Geotechnical Engineer of Record. Such soils have USCS classifications of ML, MH, ML-CL, and MH-CH. Use of topsoil, marl, peat, other organic soils construction debris and/or other unsuitable materials as fill is not allowed. Such soils have USCS classifications of OL, OH, Pt. Engineered fill, classified as clay, should be tempered such that the moisture content at the time of placement is equal to and no more than 4 percent above the optimum content for as defined by the appropriate proctor test. Likewise, engineered fill classified as gravel or sand should be tempered such that the moisture content at the time of placement enables compaction to appropriate criteria. All engineered fill for construction should be placed in individual 8 inch maximum depth lifts. Each lift of fill should be compacted by large vibratory equipment until the in-place soil density is equal to or greater than the criteria established within the following tabulation. Compaction Criteria (% respective Proctor) ^ Sand or Gravel Type of Construction Clay General Embankment Fill Engineered Fill below Foundations Engineered Fill below Floor Slabs Engineered Fill placed against Foundation Walls Engineered Fill placed as Pavement Subgrade Engineered Fill placed as Pavement Aggregate Base Engineered Fill placed within Utility Trench (to within 3 feet of pavement aggregate base or final grade Engineered Fill placed as Utility Trench Fill (within 3 feet of pavement aggregate base or final grade 95 to 100 Min. 95 95 to 98 95 to 98 Min. 95 Min. 95 Min. 95 Min. 95 95 to 100 Min. 95 Min. 98 Min. 95 NA Min. 95 Min. 98 Min. 98 1 Unless otherwise required, compaction criteria shall be based on the Standard Proctor Test (ASTM D698). Density tests should be taken during engineered fill placement to document earthwork has achieved necessary compaction of the material(s). Recommendations for interior fill placement and backfill of foundation walls are presented within other sections of this report. SWELLING of CLAY SOILS Swell of clay soil occurs when moderate to highly desiccated, "over consolidated", moderate to highly plastic clay absorbs moisture concurrent within removal of overburden pressure. The fat clay soils comprising the Glacial Lake Agassiz formation are generally know as to have "moderate" to "high risk" of swelling when conditions favorable for heave occur. Clay minerals are generally elongated bipolar charged particles aligned in plate like structures. Absorption of water by the clay minerals is driven, in part, by the electrical attraction between the bipolar mineral and the electrical charged water molecule. The electrical attraction at the molecular level is a fairly strong bond which forces separation of the clay particle into a stratified system of bonded clay and water. The resulting composite system has greatly increased volume as compared to the original clay minerals. Major clay minerals include Kaolinite, Holloysite, lllite. Calcium Montmorillonite, Sodium Montmorillonite, and Sodium Hectorite. Mielenz and King (1955) have noted that absorption of water by clays leads to expansion or swelling and that the magnitude of swelling varied widely depending upon the type and quantity of clay mineral present, their exchangeable ions, electrolyte content of the aqueous phase, particle-size distribution, void size and distribution, the internal structure, water content, superimposed load, and possibly other factors. Research geology professor Mr. Ralph Grim [University of Illinois] collaborates free swelling of clay minerals varied widely [see below referenced table). Free Swelling Data for Clay Minerals (%) [After Mielenz and King, 1955] Clay Mineral Type Sample Source Percent Swell Calcium Montmorillonite:Forest, Mississippi Wilson Creek Dam, Colorado Davis Dam, Arizona Osage, Wyoming (prepared from Na-Mont.) Osage, Wyoming Hector, California Fithian, Illinois Morris, Illinois Tazewell, Virginia Mesa Alta, New Mexico Macon, Georgia Langley, North Carolina Santa Rita, New Mexico 145 95 45-85 125 Sodium Montmorillonite: Sodium Hectorite: lllite: 1,400 -1,600 1,600 - 2,000 115 -120 60 15 Kaolinite:5 60 20 Halloysite:70 As shown above, the effective range of swell in percent varies widely from as little as 5% with Kaolinite to 2,000% with Sodium Hectorite. Of major concern, regional clay soils typically include varying concentration of montmorillonite mineral [commonly defined as smectite]. Note that defining the percent content and mineral type of clay soils calls for very costly and time intensive laboratory analysis. Such determination cannot be made through visual classification or simple laboratory testing of soil samples. Reduction of free swell may be achieved through a reduction or chemical modification of high swell mineral, elimination of water absorption, and/or replacement by soils having no risk of swell. Each of these issues requires further review and/or modification to recommendations of this report. Such may include but are not limited to the isolation of lightly loaded floor slabs from more heavily loaded foundation element, allowing unhindered movement between walls / floor and any piped penetrations and, most importantly, providing continuous automated drainage of site during construction and permanent subsurface drainage of foundations and at-grade floors long term. Lacking access to moisture, heave prone clay soils typically experience minimal volume change. PROJECT SUMPS The collection, control and removal of seepage and runoff from within project excavations is critical in maintaining the bearing capacity of native soils, in-place density of engineered fill and stability of embankments at project excavations. As constructed, it is our opinion all sumps should consist of a 2 foot by 2 foot or larger plan dimension excavation(s) located adjacent to and directly exterior to the excavation oversize limit for structural engineered fill [see appended Figure Ij. Sump excavations should extend a minimum of 2 feet below the base of the excavation for collection of seepage and runoff. All sumps should be lined with a non-woven, needle-punched, geotextile having a grab tensile strength equal to or greater than 70 pounds per square inch (psi). A standpipe of 12 inches in diameter or larger should be centered within the sump excavation. This pipe should include sufficient openings for entry of seepage. We recommend that the standpipe extend to the ground surface to facilitate pumping during project construction. Infill within the sump area should consist of a 1% to % inch clear rock placed between the standpipe and walls of the sump excavation. Pumping of sump(s) should continue until completion of the construction, or until the Geotechnical Engineer of Record indicates pumping is no longer necessary for stability of footings and related construction. You must abandon sumps per methods required by the Geotechnical Engineer of Record and per Federal, State and local governmental statutes. Discharge from sumps should be directed away from site and be disposed within storm water systems or other systems which comply with Federal, State and local governmental statute. As constructed and operated, the General Contractor should be responsible for all permits, operation and abandonment of sumps or other temporary dewatering systems. Figure B: Minimum Geotechnicai Requirements for At-Grade Construction Figure C: Minimum Geotechnicai Requirements for Basement Construction APPENDIX C This page intentionally left blank. N JlIVCHI Figure 1A Ace Brandt Lakeshore Day Residence Pelican Lake - Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 NOLOCIES.U.C JOB TITLE : Embankment Stability - Existing Embankment. Soil Strata (•10*3) _ 1,500FLAC/SLOPE (Version 7.00) LEGEND _ 1.450 e-Jul-16 9:59 _ 1.400 User-defined Groups 'Soil 5 - Lean Clay Till (C 'Soil 6 - Clayey Sand Till 'Soil 4 - Fat Clay, Lean Cl 'Soil 3 - Lean Clay, Fat Cl 'Soil 2 - Alluvium (CD)' 'Soil 1 - Fat Clay (CD)' Boundary plot 1.350 _ 1.300 1.250 1E 20 ’-dWater Table _ 1.200Net App^ed Forces max vector = 1 430E+03 Stability findings are approximate and based on estimated soil strengths as obtained from iaboratory tests, and of correlation of boring soil strata with standard design charts as published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EM-1110-2-1904 and 1905 Engineering Manuals, and/or the Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVFAC DM-7 manuai. We direct you to geotechnical exploration report for a iisting of soii parameters used in stabiiity analysis of embankment.. 0 2E 3 _ 1.150 _ 1.100 Northern Technologies, LLC Fargo, North Dakota I I I T I I I0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.7502.250 3.250 3.750 (MO^‘2) NTI TECHNOLOG Figure 1B Ace Brandt Lakeshore Day Residence Pelican Lake - Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 IE&.UC JOB TITLE : Embankment Stability - Regrade of Embankment Crest. Soil Strata (*10*3) FLAC/SLOPE (Version 7.00) _ 1.475 LEGEND _ 1.425e-Jul-16 10:26 _ 1.375 User-defined Groups 'Soil 5 - Lean Clay Till (U 'Soil 6 - Clayey Sand Till 'Soil 4 - Fat Clay, Lean Cl 'Soil 3 - Lean Clay, Fat Cl 'Soil 2 - Alluvium (UU)' 'Soil 1 - Fat Clay (UU)' 'Clay Fill (UU)’ Boundary plot _ 1.325 - 1.275 . 1.2250IE 2 Water Table Net Aopiiea Forces max vector = 1.252E+03 Stability findings are approximate and based on estimated soil strengths as obtained from laboratory tests, and of correlation of boring soil strata with standard design charts as published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EM-1110-2-1904 and 1905 Engineering Manuals, and/or the Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVFAC DM-7 manual. We direct you to geotechnical exploration report for a listing of soil parameters used in stability analysis of embankment.. _ 1.175 2E 3n _ 1.125 Northern Technologies, LLC Fargo, North Dakota 1.075 I I I I I I I I0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 3.750 (•10''2) (^NTI % 9 NORTHERN TECHNO U3C Figure 1C Ace Brandt Lakeshore Day Residence Pelican Lake - Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700IES,LU JOB TITLE : Embankment Stability - Excavation for Building, Soil Strata (*10*3) FLAC/SLOPE (Version 7.00) - 1.475 LEGEND _ 1.425e-Jul-16 10:33 Factor of Safety 1.40 _ 1.375 User-defined Groutrs ■ 'Soil 5-Lean Clay Till (C ■ 'Soil 6 - Clayey Sand Till I 'Soil 4 - Fat Clay, Lean Cl n 'Soil 3 - Lean Clay, Fat Cl ■ 'Soil 2 - Alluvium (CD)' H 'Soil 1 - Fat Clay (CD)' ^ exclude ■ 'Clay Fill (CD)' Boundary plot ^ 1.325 _ 1.275 _ 1.225 IE 20 Water Table Stability findings are approximate and based on estimated soil strengths as obtained from laboratory tests, and of correlation of boring soil strata with standard design charts as published by the U S. Army Corps of Engineers EM-1110-2-1904 and 1905 Engineering Manuals, and/or the Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVFAC DM-7 manual. We direct you to geotechnical exploration report for a listing of soil parameters used In stability analysis of embankment.. _ 1.175Net Applioci Forces max vector = 1 252E-r03 _ 1.125 Northern Technologies, LLC Fargo, North Dakota 1.075 I I I I I I0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 3.750 (•10*2) ^NTI \ M NORTHERNTCCHNOUX Figure 2A Ace Brandt Lakeshore Day Residence Pelican Lake - Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700IES.I.U JOB TITLE : Embankment Stability - Existing Conditions, UU Soil Strength (•10*3) Stability finding depicted below presents finding influenced by boundary of model. Such finding under predicts actual stability of embankment [per UU Soil Strength]. No further assessment of stability per UU soil strength was undertaken as results are above unity and observation of site implies deep seated shear of embankment unlikely to occur. See report for further discussion of this issue. _ 1.500FLAC/SLOPE (Version 7.00) LEGEND - 1.450 6-Jul-ie 10:24 _ 1.400 Factor of Safety 1.18 Shear Strain Rate Contours 2.00E-06 4.00E-06 6.00E-06 8.00E-06 1.00E-05 1.350 _ 1.300 Contour intervaN 2.00E-06 (zero contour omitted) Boundary plot 1.250O *4 S' .,.J fftmIE 20 _ 1.200 Water Table Stability findings are approximate and based on estimated soil strengths as obtained from laboratory tests, and of comelation of boring soil strata with standard design charts as published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EM-1110-2-1904 and 1905 Engineering Manuals, and/or the Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVFAC DM-7 manual. We direct you to geotechnical exploration report for a listing of soil parameters used in stability analysis of embankment.. Net Appi;ed Forces max vector = 1 715E+03 1.150 5E 3I't _ 1.100 Northern Technologies, LLC Fargo, North Dakota I I I I I I I0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.750 3.2502.250 3.750 (*10*2) NTI^ f NORTHERNTECHNOLOCIE Figure 2B Ace Brandt Lakeshore Day Residence Pelican Lake - Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700S.LU JOB TITLE : Embankment Stability - Regrade of Embankment Crest. UU Soil Strength (*10*3) Stability finding depicted below presents finding influenced by boundary of model. Such finding under predicts actual stability of embankment [per UU Soil Strength]. No further assessment of stability per UU soil strength was undertaken as results are above unity and observation of site implies deep seated shear of embankment unlikely to occur. See report for further discussion of this issue. FLAC/SLOPE (Version 7.00) _ 1.475 LEGEND _ 1.425e-Jul-16 10:27 Factor of Safety 1.40 _ 1.375ih Shear Strain Rate Contours 1.00E-06 2.00E-06 3.00E-06 4.00E-06 5.00E-06 6.00E-06 7.00E-06 8.00E-06 ife i m:.. .■1.325 I I;P r‘ _ 1.275. : \(Ai _ 1.225Contour interval 1.00E-06 (zero contour omitted) Boundary plot hi? ' ■ Stability findings are approximate and based on estimated soil strengths as obtained from laboratory tests, and of correlation of boring soil strata with standard design charts as published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EM-1110-2-1904 and 1905 Engineering Manuals, and/or the Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVFAC DM-7 manual. We direct you to geotechnical exploration report for a listing of soil parameters used in stability analysis of embankment.. - 1.175IE 20 Water Table t'-let Applied Forces :OdX vector = 1 2.52E t-03 _ 1.125 Northern Technologies, LLC Fargo, North Dakota _ 1.075 I I I I [I I0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 3.750 (*10*2) Figure 2C Ace Brandt Lakeshore Day Residence Pelican Lake - Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 r^Nji TECHNOLOCIES.LLC JOB TITLE : Embankment Stability - Excavation for Building, UU Soil Strength (•10*3) Stability finding depicted below presents finding influenced by boundary of model. Such finding under predicts actuai stability of embankment [per UU Soil Strength]. No further assessment of stability per UU soil strength was undertaken as results are above unity and observation of site implies deep seated shear of embankment uniikely to occur. See report for further discussion of this issue. FLAC/SLOPE (Version 7.00) _ 1.475 LEGEND _ 1.4256-Jul-16 10:30 Factor of Safety 1.40 _ 1.375 Shear Strain Rate Contours 2.50E-06 5.00E-06 7.50E-06 1.00E-05 1.25E-05 1.50E-05 1.75E-05 I ^ 1.325 _ 1.275W. Contour interval= 2.50E-06 (zero contour omitted) Boundary plot _ 1.225 Stability findings are approximate and based on estimated soil strengths as obtained from laboratory tests, and of correlation of boring soil strata with standard design charts as published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EM-1110-2-1904 and 1905 Engineering Manuals, and/or the Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVFAC DM-7 manual. We direct you to geotechnical exploration report for a listing of soil parameters used in stability analysis of embankment.. IE 20 „ 1.175 Water Table Met Applied Forces max vector = 2.608E+03 _ 1.125 Northern Technologies, LLC Fargo, North Dakota 1.075 I 1 I i I I 0.7500.250 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 3.750 (*10*2) NTI* M NORTHERNTECHNOLOCI Figure 3A Ace Brandt Lakeshore Day Residence Pelican Lake - Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700E$,U.C JOB TITLE : Embankment Stability - Existing Conditions, CD Soil Strength rws) _ 1.500FLAC/SLOPE (Version 7.00} LEGEND _ 1.450 6-Jul-16 10:01 . 1.400 Factor of Safety 1.61 ■»' ■■ ' .jShear Strain Rate Contours 1.00E-05 2.00E-05 3.00E-05 4.00E-05 5.00E-05 6.00E-05 7.00E-05 1.350 ip:_ 1.300A- -I 1.250 Contour interval= 1 .OOE-05 (zero contour omitted) Boundary plot ^ 1.200J Stability findings are approximate and based on estimated soil strengths as obtained from laboratory tests, and of correlation of boring soil strata with standard design charts as published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EM-1110-2-1904 and 1905 Engineering Manuals, and/or the Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVFAC DM-7 manual. We direct you to geotechnical exploration report for a listing of soil parameters used in stability analysis of embankment.. 0 IE 2 Water Table - 1.150Net Appiiea Forces max vector = 1 430E+03 _ 1.100. = F :Northern Technologies, LLC Fargo, North Dakota I I T I I I0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 3.750 (M0*2) Figure 3B Ace Brandt Lakeshore Day Residence Pelican Lake - Otter Tail County. Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 NTIMOirrNERN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC JOB TITLE : Embankment Stability - Regrade of Embankment Crest, CU Soil Strength (*ia«3) FLAC/SLOPE (Version 7.00) _ 1.475 LEGEND _ 1.4256-JUI-16 10:28 Factor of Safety 1.70 _ 1.375 Shear Strain Rate Contours 2.00E-06 4.00E-06 6.00E-06 8.00E-06 1 .OOE-05 1.325 _ 1.275 Contour interval= 2.00E-06 (zero contour omitted) Boundary plot - 1225 IE 20 Water Table stability findings are approximate and based on estimated soil strengths as obtained from laboratory tests, and of correlation of boring soil strata with standard design charts as published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EM-1110-2-1904 and 1905 Engineering Manuals, and/or the Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVFAC DM-7 manual. We direct you to geotechnical exploration report for a listing of soil parameters used in stability analysis of embankment.. _ 1.175Net /Xppiied Forces max vector = 1 604E+03 _ 1.1255E 3 Northern Technologies, LLC Fargo, North Dakota 1.075 ]I I I I I I0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 3.750 (*10^2) N JITCCHNOLOCI Figure 3C Ace Brandt Lakeshore Day Residence Pelican Lake - Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 C5.LU: JOB TITLE : Embankment Stability - Excavation for Building, CU Soil Strength FLAC/SLOPE (Version 7.00) (*10*3) _ 1.475 LEGEND - 1.425e-Jul-16 10:31 Factor of Safety 1.63 _ 1.375 ^ear Strain Rate Contours 5.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.50E-06 2.00E-06 2.50E-06 3.00E-06 3.50E-06 4.00E-06 4.50E-06 * 1.325 _ 1.275 _ 1.225 Contour interval= 5.00E-07 (zero contour omitted) Boundary plot Stability findings are approximate and based on estimated soil strengths as obtained from laboratory tests, and of correlation of boring soil strata with standard design charts as published by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EM-1110-2-1904 and 1905 Engineering Manuals, and/or the Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVFAC DM-7 manual. We direct you to geotechnical exploration report for a listing of soil parameters used in stability analysis of embankment.. - 1.175 IE 20 Water Table _ 1.125 Met A.prilied rorces 1iriDv Northern Technologies, LLC Fargo, North Dakota ^ 1.075TTT1IIII0.250 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 3.750 (M0*2) NTI % 9 NORTHERNTECHNOLOC Figure 4A Ace Brandt Lakeshore Day Residence Pelican Lake - Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700IES.UC JOB TITLE : Embankment Stability - Existing Conditions, CD Soil Strength (*10*3) _ 1.500FLAC/SLOPE (Version 7.00) LEGEND _ 1.450 e-Jul-16 10:25 _ 1.400 Factor of Safety 1.41 ^ear Strain Rate Contours 2.50E-05 5.00E-05 7.50E-05 1 .OOE-04 1.25E-04 1.50E-04 1.75E-04 2.00E-04 2.25E-04 1.350 _ 1.300 1.250 Contour interval= 2.50E-05 (zero contour omitted) Boundary plot _ 1.200 Stability findings are approximate and based on estimated soil strengths as obtained from laboratory tests, and of correlation of boring soil strata with standard design charts as published by the U S. Army Corps of Engineers EM-1110-2-1904 and 1905 Engineering Manuals, and/or the Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVFAC DM-7 manual. We direct you to geotechnical exploration report for a listing of soil parameters used in stability analysis of embankment.. 0 IE 2 _ 1.150 Water Table Net Appi.ec Forces _ 1.1001 4:5iiF+03 Northern Technologies, LLC Fargo, North Dakota 'urA\ -■ T T I T I I I0.250 0-750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 3.750 (*10*2) (£nti TlCHNOLOC«ES,LLC Figure 4B Ace Brandt Lakeshore Day Residence Pelican Lake - Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 JOB TITLE : Embankment Stability - Regrade of Embankment Crest, CD Soil Strength (*10*3) FLAC/SLOPE (Version 7.00) _ 1.475 LEGEND _ 1.4256-Jul-16 10:29 Factor of Safety 1.45 _ 1.375 Shear Strain Rate Contours 5.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.50E-06 2.00E-06 2.50E-06 3.00E-06 1.325 _ 1.275 Contour interval= 5.00E-07 (zero contour omitted) Boundary plot I . , _ 1.225 J IE 20 Stability findings are approximate and based on estimated soil strengths as obtained from laboratory tests, and of correlation of boring soil strata with standard design charts as publisher! by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers EM-1110-2-1904 and 1905 Engineering Manuals, and/or the Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVFAC DM-7 manual. We direct you to geotechnical exploration report for a listing of soil parameters used in stability analysis of embankment.. _ 1.175Water Table Net Apptec Forces max vector = 1.604E+03 _ 1.125 5E 3 Northern Technologies, LLC Fargo, North Dakota 1.075 I I I I I0.2S0 0.750 1.250 1.750 2.250 2.750 3.250 3.750 (*10''2) f^NTf % # NORTHCRNTECHMOUXIES.UX Figure 4C Ace Brandt Lakeshore Day Residence Pelican Lake - Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 JOB TITLE : Embankment Stability - Excavation for Building, CD Soil Strength (*10*3) FLAC/SLOPE (Version 7.00) - 1.475 LEGEND _ 1.425e-Jul-16 11:12 Factor of Safety 1.43 _ 1.375 Shear Strain Rate Contours 5.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.50E-06 2.00E-06 2.50E-06 3.00E-06 3.50E-06 4.00E-06 ^ 1.325 _ 1.275 _ 1.225Contour interval= 5.00E-07 (zero contour omitted) Boundary plot stability findings are approximate and based on estimated soil strengths as obtained from laboratory tests, and of correlation of boring soil strata with standard design charts as published by the U S. Army Corps of Engineers EM-1110-2-1904 and 1905 Engineering Manuals, and/or the Naval Facilities Engineering Command NAVFAC DM-7 manual. We direct you to geotechnical exploration report for a listing of soil parameters used in stability analysis of embankment.. j - 1.175IE 20 Water Table _ 1.125Net Applied Force.s max vecto! -1 i3Q4c;-‘-03 Northern Technologies, LLC Fargo, North Dakota 1.075 I I I 1 T I I0.250 0.750 1.250 2.2501.750 2.750 3.250 3.750(*10'^2) Job No. 10419 Date: 6/30/16TRIAXIAL TEST ASTM: D 4767 Brandt Lake Residence and Boathouse Slope Stability Sample #: 9 Type: 3T Fat Clay w/sand and a trace of gravel (CH) Project: Boring #: Soil Type: 2 Depth (ft): 20 2.5 n Failure Criterion:Max. Stress Ratio Angle of internal friction, = 29.9 ° Apparent Cohesion, c' = 0.09 (tsQ A 2 - -f* * Test Date: 6/23/16 Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Spec. Gravity (Assumed) o A Test Type: CD w/pp Strain Rate (in/min): 0.00073 Strain Rate (%/min): 0.025 A1 A£ □ 2.72 go.5 C ■ ■■ ■ ■Before Consolidation A B C D EoQ.►Diameter (in) Height (in) Water Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Void Ratio 1.44 1.44 1.4402.94 2.94 2.94 23.3 24.3 17.8i-0.5 103.0 101.3 112.8 n 6 0.65 0.68 0.51 After Consolidation5Diameter (in) Height (in) Water Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Void Ratio 1.42 1.42 1.42G-in " 4min £ 3 OT - 2 .2 a 1 2.91 2.91 2.91 22.0 22.2 15.9 106.3 105.9 118.5 0.60 0.60 0.43o Back Pressure (tsf) Minor Principal Stress (tsf) Max. Deviator Stress (tsf) Ultimate Deviator Stress (tsf) Deviator Stress at Failure (tsf) Max. Pore Pressure Buildup (tsf) Pore Pressure Parameter "B" Pet. Axial Strain at Failure 8.0 8.0 4.2 1.10 2.20 4.40 If 2.62 3.37 4.86 3.372.62 4.720 +1.85 2.96 4.83 4.0 0.43 0.91 2.18 0.95 0.95 0.953.5 A 3.1 4.5 7.9 0 3.0 These test results are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are appropriate for any particular design" DC 2.5 X £Remarks: Radial drainage strips applied to trimmed specimen; Saturated, backpressured until ”B” response was 0.95 to 1.00; Consolidated; All Drainage valves closed and immediately sheared.■t1.5 1.0 0 5 10 15 20 Axial Strain (%) 4 • \S %■ y t H: *. 0 0 2 31 4 5 0 312 4 5 e 7 8 Normal Stress (tsf)Nocmal Stress (p') (tsf) Effective ifi': 29.9 “ Total (|): 18.0° Rupture Envelope at Failure a= 26.5 ° a= 0.1 (tsf) c'=0.09 (tsf) 0.33 (tsf)c= SOIL TNGINEERING ESTING, INC.9530 James Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 Job No. 10419 Date: 6/30/16TRIAXIAL TEST ASTM: D 4767 Brandt Lake Residence and Boathouse Slope Stability Sample #: 9 Type: 3T Fat Clay w/sand and a trace of gravel (CH) Project: Boring #: Soil Type: Depth (ft): 202 2.5 n Failure Criterion:Max. Deviator Stress 29.9 ° 0.00 (tsf) Angle of internal friction, = Apparent Cohesion, c' = A “ » * » « t t2 «M Test Date: 6/23/16 Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Plasticity Index: Spec. Gravity (Assumed): T'1.5V Test Type: CD w/pp Strain Rate (in/min): 0.00073 Strain Rate (%/min): 0.025 *A1<A4)* □ a.2.72 £0.5 J ■ • ■ • ■B C DBefore Consolidation A E■■■oa Diameter (in) Height (in) Water Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Void Ratio 1.44 1.44 1,44 ► ♦ •0 . ■2.94 2.94 2.94 24.3 17.823.3-0.5 101.3 112,8103.0 n 0.65 0.510.686 After Consolidation 5 t Diameter (in) Height (in) Water Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Void Ratio 1.42 1.421.42AAAAAc*2.91 2.91 2.91CO ^ 4COCOS3 0 2^ 22.0 22.2 15.9 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■■mmmm 105.9 118.5106.3 0.60 0.60 0.43 A ♦ ♦ A A-^Back Pressure (tsf) Minor Principal Stress (tsf) Max. Deviator Stress (tsf) Ultimate Deviator Stress (tsf) Deviator Stress at Failure (tsf) Max. Pore Pressure Buildup (tsf) Pore Pressure Parameter "B“ Pet. Axial Strain at Failure 8.0 4.28.0! 1.10 2.20 4.40 If 3.372.62 4.86► 3.37 4.722.620 +2.62 3.37 4.86 4.0 0.43 0.91 2.18 0.95 0.95 0.953.5 18.9 13.820.0 O 3.0 "These test results are for informational purpx)ses only and must be reviewed by a qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are appropriate for any particular design" t oc 2.5 X£Remarks; Radial drainage strips applied to trimmed specimen; Saturated, backpressured until "B" response was 0.95 to 1.00; Consolidated; All Drainage valves closed and immediately sheared.1.5 1.0 15 200 5 10 Axial Strain (%) 4 3 C-& (A(A£ g 1 ■'V \ L j «■1\(A V/#\;/;1VI 0 7 82 3 4 5 601 Normal Stress (tsf) Effective (>'; 29.9 ° Total <>: 14.7® c'= 0.00 (tsf) c= 0.72 (tsf) Rupture Envelope at Failure a= 26.5 ° a= 0.0 (tsf) SOIL fNGINEERING ESTING, INC.Bloomington, Minnesota 554319530 James Avenue South Job No. 10419 Date: 6/30/16TRIAXIAL TEST ASTM: D 4767 Brandt Lake Residence and Boathouse Slope Stability Sample #: 9 Type; 3T Fat Clay w/sand and a trace of gravel (CH) Project: Boring #; Soil Type: 2 Depth (ft); 20 2.5 n Failure Criterion:Given Strain of: 15% Angie of internal friction, = 30.3 “ Apparent Cohesion, c' = 0.00 (tsQ A A A2 - ^1.5 A Test Date: 6/23/16 Test Type: CUw/pp Strain Rate (in/min): 0.00073 [ Strain Rate (%/min): 0.025 \ Before Consolidation Liquid Limit: Plastic Limit: Plasticity Index: Spec. Gravity (Assumed): 2 A M 1 A d)A a □ 2.72 " ■ ■ ■ ■! ■A B C D E■■o0.Diameter (in) Height (in) Water Content (%) Dry Density (pet) Void Ratio 1.44 1.44 1.44 • ♦-2.94 2.94 2.94 23.3 24.3 17.8-0.5 103.0 101.3 112.8 n 0.656 0.68 0.51 After Consolidation 5 i- Diameter (in) Height (in) Water Content (%) Dry Density (pcf) Void Ratio 1.42 1.42 1.42■--A Ac* 4M C- 4 2.91 2.91 2.91 15.922.0 22.2 ■ -■■■■■£106.3 105.9 118.5 -♦— ♦0.60 0.60 0.43 ♦ ♦ ♦ *-* Back Pressure (tsf) Minor Principal Stress (tsf) Max. Deviator Stress (tsf) Ultimate Deviator Stress (tsf) Deviator Stress at Failure (tsf) Max. Pore Pressure Buildup (tsf) Pore Pressure Parameter "8" Pet. Axial Strain at Failure 8.0 8.0 4.2 1.10 2.20 4.40 2.62 3.37 4.86>3.37 4.722.620 +2.55 3.36 4.86 4.0 0.43 0.91 2.18 0.95 0.95 0.953.5 15.0 15.0 15.0 O 3.0 These test results are tor informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are appropriate for any particular design" t K 2.5 XnnSRemarks: Radial drainage strips applied to trimmed specimen; Saturated, backpressured until "B" response was 0.95 to 1.00; Consolidated; All Drainage valves closed and immediately sheared.1.5 1.0 15510 200 Axial Strain (%) 4 3 Cn --t tf)w£ CO % 2 1 !\CO \\//\i !t 0 0 2 3 4 5 01 2 3 5 6 71 4 8 Normal Stress (tsf)Normal Stress (p')(tsf) Effective i|)': 30.3 ° Total (|): 15.0° Rupture Envelope at Failure a= 26.8 ° a = 0.0 (tsf) 0.00 (tsf) 0.69 (tsf) c'= c= OIL NGINEERING ESTING, INC. 9530 James Avenue South Bloomington, Minnesota 55431 10419 6/30/16 Triaxial Data Job: 2 9 20Boring:Sample:Depth:Date: Sample 1 Sample z Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample s 0)2>0)C)0 o 2 o 2 o 2=3 3 3 3 3o 2 > <ji 6 S5?SS SS(/)0)c/3 C/3 (0(0 CO C/3 (0 COIS^3 15 130) ^ w Q- ^ 2^0)CO 0) c:CO 0> '&> %.E .£.E .E > %> %.EQ.CL Q.cC rs (0 A0)a>£0)(U 0><u (U0>a>a>a>o a>Q Q Q a a55w55CO CO CO COCOoooo oCLa.CL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.45 0.17 0.34 0.67 0.27 0.52 0.82 0.32 0.69 0.98 0.37 0.86 1.09 0.40 1.03 1.19 0.41 1.20 1.28 0.43 1.37 1.36 0.43 1.55 1.43 0.43 1.72 1.50 0.43 1.89 1.56 0.42 2.06 1.61 0.42 2.23 1.66 0.40 2.40 1.70 0.39 2.58 1.74 0.38 2.75 1.78 0.37 2.92 1.82 0.36 3.10 1.85 0.34 3.26 1.88 0.33 3.44 1.91 3.78 1.97 0.29 4.13 2.03 0.27 4.47 , 2.08 0.25 4.81 2.12 0.22 5.16 2.16 0.20 5.51 5.50 2.19 0.18 6.19 2.25 0.14 6.87 2.29 0.10 7.56 2.29 0.07 8.25 2.28 0.05 8.93 2.29 0.02 9.62 2.33 0.00 2.37 -0.03 2.42 -0.05 2.46 -0.08 2.50 -0.10 2.54 -0.12 2.55 -0.14 2.50 -0.18 2.54 -0.21 2.59 -0.23 2.62 -0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.74 0.25 0.35 1.06 0.43 0.52 1.33 0.57 0.69 1.52 0.66 0.86 1.67 0.73 1.04 1.84 0.78 1.95 0.82 1.38 2.08 0.85 2.19 0.87 1.72 2.28 0.89 2.36 0.90 2.07 2.42 0.91 2.24 2.50 0.91 2.56 0.91 2.58 2.60 0.91 2.75 2.65 0.91 2.92 2.69 0.90 3.10 2.73 0.90 3.27 2.77 3.44 2.80 0.88 3.78 2.87 0.87 2.93 0.86 4.47 2.96 0.84 5.16 3.03 0.80 3.07 0.79 6.19 3.12 0.75 3.17 0.71 7.57 3.20 0.68 8.25 3.25 0.65 3.32 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 1.53 0.48 0.35 2.12 0.83 0.52 2.55 1.11 0.69 2.89 1.33 0.86 3.14 1.50 1.04 3.34 1.63 1.21 3.52 1.73 1.38 3.66 1.83 1.55 3.79 1.90 1.72 3.90 1.95 1.90 4.00 1.98 2.07 4.08 2.02 2.24 4.14 2.04 4.20 2.06 2.58 4.25 2.08 2.76 4.30 2.09 2.93 4.35 2.11 3.10 4.38 2.12 3.27 4.40 2.13 3.44 4.43 2.14 3.79 4.47 2.16 4.13 4.51 2.17 4.48 4.53 2.17 4.82 4.56 2.17 5.16 4.58 2.18 5.51 4.60 2.17 6.20 4.68 2.17 6.88 4.77 2.16 7.23 4.80 2.15 7.57 4.81 7.92 4.83 2.15 8.26 4.83 2.14 8.60 4.83 2.13 8.95 4.82 2.12 9.29 4.81 9.64 4.81 9.98 4.81 10.32 4.79 2.10 11.01 4.78 2.08 11.70 4.76 2.06 12.39 4.77 2.06 13.08 4.81 13.76 4.86 2.05 15.48 4.86 2.03 17.20 4.77 2.01 18.92 4.69 2.01 20.00 4.72 2.01 1.21 1.55 1.89 2.41 2.41 0.89 0.32 4.13 6.88 11.01 11.70 3.33 12.38 13.07 3.36 0.52 13.76 3.36 0.51 15.48 17.20 3.36 18.92 20.00 2.15 0.55 3.35 0.53 10.31 10.99 11.68 12.37 13.05 13.74 15.46 17.18 18.89 20.01 3.36 0.48 2.12 0.41 2.12 3.37 0.40 3.37 0.40 2.11 2.05 TECHNOLOGIES, LLC UNCONFINED COMPRESSION TEST Fargo 3522 4th Ave S Fargo, North Dakota 58103 P: 701.232.1822 F: 701.232.1864 www.NTIgeo.com ASTM 02166 Project:Brandt Lake Residence Boat House & Slope Stability 16-13556.700 Pelican Lake, Pelican Rapids, Minnesota Report To: Ace Brandt do Tomlinson & Sons PO Box 1763 Detroit Lakes, MN 56502 Attention: Dana Tomlinson Project Number: Location: Sample Information Borehole; Classification: SB-1 Sample Number: 8 FAT CLAY, (CH) brown to dark gray, mottled, trace lenses of silt Depth (ft):7 Sample Data Dry Density; Moisture Content (%): 79 Liquid Limit;Peak (psf);1799 @ 5.8% 43 Plastic Limit: I£1,800i u 1,600 s I 1,400 1,200 I Q.UJ w 1,000 wUJ a: I ^ 800I A600I alU 400 § s A200oII 0,as 2 4 6 8 100 STRAIN, %«!s Comments:i I I Submitted by. Northern Technologies, LLC§Cc:Si P y Iii§3 (7/7/16) NT' TECHNOLOGIES, LLC CONSOLIDATION TEST Fargo 3522 4th Ave S Fargo, North Dakota 58103 P; 701.232.1822 F; 701.232.1864 www.NTIgeo.com Project:Report To: Ace Brandt c/o Tomlinson & Sons PO Box 1763 Detroit Lakes, MN 56502 Attention: Dana Tomlinson Brandt Lake Residence Boat House & Slope Stability 16-13556.700 Pelican Lake, Pelican Rapids, Minnesota Project Number: Location: Sample Information Borehole:SB-1 Depth (ft):7.0 Soil Classification:FAT CLAY, (CH) brown to dark gray, mottled, trace lenses of silt Sample Data %Deg of Sat (%) MC (%)LL PI Sp Gravity Overburden (Isf) Pc (tsf) 2.70 Cc Cr Initial Void Ratio 1.13643790.2621.37 0.016 i I 1.15I. ui 3 1.10 <s I 1.05s3 s I s Q 1.003I- $3 9I KoI>0.95 \ \U) IS 0.90sCD I s 0.85I %sI 0.80 0.1 10 1002 a STRESS, tsf2 3 Comments: 5 Submitted by. Northern Technologies, LLC§ ; Cc: i 5£ § ss (6/27/16) f NTI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC CONSOLIDATION TEST Fargo 3522 4th Ave S Fargo, North Dakota 58103 P: 701.232.1822 F: 701.232.1864 www.NTIgeo.com Project:Report To; Ace Brandt do Tomlinson & Sons PO Box 1763 Detroit Lakes, MN 56502 Attention: Dana Tomlinson Brandt Lake Residence Boat House & Slope Stability 16-13556.700 Pelican Lake, Pelican Rapids, Minnesota Project Number: Location: Sample Information Borehole;SB-2 Depth (ft):17.0 Soil Classification:SILTY FAT CLAY, (CH) dark gray to brown, with lenses & layers of sand & silt Sample Data Deg of Sat (%) MC (%) LL PI Sp Gravity Overburden (tsf) Pc (tsf) Cc Cr Initial Void Ratio 0.55426952.70 1.75 0.209 0.009 0.78I 0.76 5 0.74i i 0.72 3 i 0.70It0.68sQs 5i 0.669IO>I l\0.64 \5> i 0.62si \l0.60 i 0.58sa I 0.56 a 0.54§0.1 10 100i STRESS, tsfs3IComments:2, I Submitted by, Northern Technologies, LLCICc: £ I S 8 (6/27/16)§ f^NJI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC CONSOLIDATION TEST Fargo 3522 4th Ave S Fargo, North Dakota 58103 P: 701.232.1822 F; 701.232.1864www.NTIgeo.com Project:Brandt Lake Residence Boat House & Slope Stability 16-13556.700 Pelican Lake, Pelican Rapids, Minnesota Report To: Ace Brandt do Tomlinson & Sons PO Box 1763 Detroit Lakes, MN 56502 Attention: Dana Tomlinson Project Number: Location: Sample Information Borehole: SB-3 Depth (ft):4.5 Soil Classification:FILL, SANDY CLAY, gray to black, trace of cobbles, trace organics Sample Data Deg of Sat {%) MC (%)LL PI Sp Gravity Overburden (tsf) Pc (tsf) 2.70 Cc Cr Initial Void Ratio 30 89 0.553 0.245 0.023 0.886 iI 0.90I § I 0.85i i 0.80I oI 0.75IQ3 0.709O I > I 0.652 i Ks i \0.60 a \110.55Ii i 0.50 0.1 10 100s6 STRESS, tsf5sIComments: s* Submitted by. Northern Technologies, LLCICc: si g i> (7/7/16) a NTI* NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC CONSOLIDATION TEST Fargo 3522 4th Ave S Fargo, North Dakota 58103 P: 701.232.1822 F: 701.232.1864 www.NTIgeo.com Project:Brandt Lake Residence Boat House & Slope Stability 16-13556.700 Pelican Lake, Pelican Rapids, Minnesota Report To: Ace Brandt do Tomlinson & Sons PO Box 1763 Detroit Lakes, MN 56502 Attention: Dana Tomlinson Project Number: Location: Sample Information Borehole:SB-3 Depth (ft):9.5 Soil Classification:SANDY LEAN CLAY, (CL) light brown, trace of gravel Sample Data XtDeg of Sat (%) MC (%)LL PI Sp Gravity Overburden (tsf) Pc (tsf) 0.94 Cc Cr Initial Void Ratio 14 2.70124 0.093 0.003 0.468 ie 0.37 si 0.36 io 0.35I 0.34 0.33sII0.32IQ 0.31I 9I 0.30o>I 0.29 \ i \0.289 V2I0.27 \1 i 0.26 5 0.25I I 0.24§0.1 10 100sISTRESS, tsfa iI Comments:I Submitted by. Northern Technologies, LLC s § 5 Cc: si B I io (6/27/16)§ Google earth feeti 300 meters' ® NTI TECHNOLOGIES, LLC Denotes approximate location of NTI soil boring.Soil Boring Diagram Brandt Lake Residence and Embankment Stability - Pelican Lake Otter Tail County, Minnesota NTI Project 16-13556.700 BORING NUMBER SB-1Northern Technologies, LUC 3522 4th Avenue South Fargo, ND 58103 P: (701)232-1822NTI PAGE 1 OF 2 Long; -96° 4' 14.664" Lat: 46° 4V 39.192" NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES. EEC CLIENT Ace Brandt do Tomlinson & Sons PROJECT NAME Brandt Lake Residence Boat House & Slope Stability PROJECT NUMBER 16-13556.700 PROJECT LOCATION Pelican Lake, Pelican Rapids, Minnesota GROUND ELEVATION 1389.3 ftDATE STARTED 6/2/16 COMPLETED 6/2/16 HOLE SIZE 6 1/2 in. DRILUNG CONTRACTOR NTI GROUND WATER LEVELS; AT TIME OF DRILLING — No groundwater encountered AT END OF DRILLING ________________________ AFTER DRILLING ___________________________ DRILUNG METHOD 3 1/4 in H.S.A LOGGED BY Chris Nelson CAVE IN (ft) _NA________ NOTES _______________ CHECKED BY Bret Anderson FROST DEPTH (ft) NA ATTERBERG LIMITSoiSSzLU 3^at- 13 Z I- lU Q.5WtU ill LUy>-P- LU LU S -J Sli I Q.t O COLUQ.itMATERIAL DESCRIPTION z or<>QO UJPt<33 tsQ£CO0^1ooo>33 COC3 u.O acUJ 3<o Q.CC C3.OCO C3.0 s'-'/ AUTOPSOIL, ORGANIC CLAY, (OH) black 12.0 1387.3i 1 55FAT CLAY, (CH) brown to dark gray, medium, mottled, trace lenses of siltI 55 2-3-489 3.2 86 39COill Ii ST 1 108 2.3i4 10 10.0 1379.3 i W 2-3-4111 1.3 97 30FAT CLAY, (CH) light brown to light gray, mediumi ill 5^5-6-813.0 1376.33 78s (14)6POORLY GRADED SAND, (SP) brown, fine to medium grained, medium denseII 55 4-6-856 2.6(14)Ui* II*t 20i 5-9-1567 S (24) I10 VI ss ^ 10 7-9-125623.3 1366.1:(21)SANDY LEAN CLAY, (CL) brown, stiff EH?I 8-10-11111 2.1 134 12(PUI (21)27.0 1362.3 SANDY LEAN CLAY, (CL) dark gray, medium to ratherKStiff130O V^ SS ^ 12 3-4-4 127 17 10831.2 21 11MI as1 VI SS 13 s 3-4-5 126 171001.2g 3I 40 Y1 ss^ 14 3-4-6 171061.2 1215(10) 3Ia 4-4-7 1.5 123 17117(11)orgs 8 m 50i Hi!5-6-7 1.6 130 17122 (Continued Next Page) ^ NTI # NORTHERNTECHNOLOCIES.LLC BORING NUMBER SB-1Northern Technologies, LLC 3522 4th Avenue South Fargo, ND 58103 P: (701)232-1822 7 PAGE 2 OF 2 Long: -96° 4' 14.664" Lat: 46° 41'39.192" CLIENT Ace Brandt do Tomlinson & Sons PROJECT NAME Brandt Lake Residence Boat House & Slope Stability PROJECT NUMBER 16-13556.700 PROJECT LOCATION Pelican Lake. Pelican Rapids. Minnesota ATTERBERG LIMITSLUzID ^ai- 13 Z I- m 03 1- Ql §03 LU CD O > 02 LUo> ii s?CLXS8 QS^. t?C3 9 COCLitMATERIAL DESCRIPTION z O XLUo LUPt s?to031ZQOOO>-35 03 U.O oOOCLU 3<o 0.q:0.03 CL TIB TT3TSANDY LEAN CLAY, (CL) dark gray, medium to rather stiff (continued) Elf 3-3-5 I 100 1.2 135 1656.0 1333.3 mFAT CLAY, (CH) dark gray, rather stiff I60 VI SS A[ 18 4-5-7100 3.0 96 29 60 17 43(12) II I Yl SS^ 19 4-4-7s111 2.5 109 193(11) I?t IS70 Vi SS ^ 20 3-5-7111 3.3 88 36I(12)£s I 3 Is Yl SS ^ 21Is 4-5-8106 2.7 98 30(13)s i i3§0. I 80 Y SS ^ 22 4-6-8 i 122 2.1 101 26I(14) 8O) I I Y SS ^ 23 4-5-8ii 2.6 100 26111(13) II I 90 Y SS1^ 24I 4-6-8 2.0 96 291298.391.0I (14) Bottom of borehole at 91.0 feet. Borehole backfilled with auger cuttings. s § g 3 I 5 I5 § V ?s I 1 1 i NTI’ S5!i BORING NUMBER SB-2Northern Technologies, LLC 3522 4th Avenue South Fargo, ND 58103 P: (701)232-1822 PAGE 1 OF 2 Long; -96° 4' 13.692" Lat: 46° 41'39.336" IES.LLC CLIENT Ace Brandt do Tomlinson & Sons PROJECT NAME Brandt Lake Residence Boat House & Slope Stability PROJECT NUMBER 16-13556.700 PROJECT LOCATION Pelican Lake. Pelican Rapids, Minnesota GROUND ELEVATION 1383 ftDATE STARTED 6/7/16 COMPLETED 6/7/16 HOLE SIZE 6 1/2 in. DRILLING CONTRACTOR NTI GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF DRILLING — No groundwater encountered AT END OF DRILLING ~______________ DRILLING METHOD 3 1/4 in H.S.A LOGGED BY Chris Nelson CAVE IN (ft) _NA________ NOTES_______________ CHECKED BY Bret Anderson FROST DEPTH (ft)AFTER DRILLING ATTERBERG LIMITSuizUJcci- H UJ wt- a 5w mIIIoz m>a.s?I CLUJJo t yt]|c/>LU S -i 2ii Q.ibMATERIAL DESCRIPTIONO z o?<i=b UJ<=)S eSa:-'P 2w1o5aoo>-55C5 W u.O■S.oui q:<5oQ.a.CL Qw Q.0 AUGRAVELLY SAND, dark brown, moist TEMPOFtARY FILL (support of drill)1S I 1379.0 FILL, SAND, brown, fine to medium graineds 5?2-6-839w(14)6.5 1376.5 %CLAYEY SAND, (SC) brown, fine to medium grained, medium dense s EF 4-6-6i94 134 (12)//y9.o 1374.03 SANDY LEAN CLAY, (CL) light brown, trace gravel10 n9 81 2.2%11.5 1371.5 LEAN CLAY, (CL) dark gray to brown, stiff, trace sand, trace gravel IS nf 4-6-10s94 5.5 110 196(16)II1 cs'16.5 1366.5sLEAN CLAY, (CL) light brown to gray, rather stiff, mottled, trace sand, trace gravel I 3-5-7I100 5.8 108 198(12) I 20 CI21.5 1361.5 LEAN CLAY, (CL) dark gray, rather stiff, trace sand, trace gravel«i Yl ss ^ 10 4-6-7111 2.3 115 18(13)3 ETfm 3-4-7117 1.6 113 19(11)iI 27.0 1356.0 FAT CLAY, (CH) dark gray, rather stiff, trace sand, trace gravels o Yl ss ^ 12 4-5-6106 1.9 114 181(11) S i8 Y ss13 4-5-794 2.4 117 17g(12) 3 I i Y ss^ 14 3-5-689 1.9 17109S(11) s 1339.5IFAT CLAY, (CH) dark gray, rather stiff to medium§Y!4-5-7100 3.3 94 29(12) £ z 9 i Eps 3-3-4111 2.4 85 37S (Continued Next Page) BORING NUMBER SB-2 PAGE 2 OF 2 Long: -96° 4'13.692" Lat: 46° 41’ 39.336" PROJECT NAME Brandt Lake Residence Boat House & Slope Stability Northern Technologies, LLC 3522 4th Avenue South Fargo, ND 58103 P: (701)232-1822NTINORTHERNTECHNOLOCIES.LLC CLIENT Ace Brandt do Tomlinson & Sons PROJECT NUMBER 16-13556.700 PROJECT LOCATION Pelican Lake, Pelican Rapids. Minnesota ATTERBERG LIMITSLU2lU ^£tl- H UJ0>l- a.5W UJi|i LU>-q:I 0.isUJ tI--5 9 CO si CL ibMATERIAL DESCRIPTION z O X UJo UJHb5 3 EqCO1QOO>^5o to u.SoUJQt<O a.{£.a.QCO Q. VTF (7TFAT CLAY, (CH) dark gray, rather stiff to medium (continued)53.5 1329.5 LEAN CLAY, (CL) dark gray, rather stiff, trace sand, trace gravel EH?8-6-983 2.0 91 32(15) 1325.5 FAT CLAY, (CH) dark gray, rather stiff 60 Y1 SS ^ 18 4-5-789 2.7 93 31(12) II1 VI SS^ 19 4-5-7100 1.3 96 27(12)67.0 1316.0 I LEAN CLAY, (CL) dark gray, rather stiff, trace sand, trace gravelss701 Y1 SS 20 4-6-7100 1.3 110 26i(13)u 1s 73.0 1310.03 I CLAYEY SAND, (SC) dark gray, fine to medium grained, medium dense, trace gravels9 3 Y1 SS21 5-5-794 2.7 131 16(12)40uj' ! it 80 VI SS AJ 22 4-5-6111 1.0 16128I(11) i sI 1 VI SS IA[ 23<6-7-756 1.5S86.0 1297.0 (14) Bottom of borehole at 86.0 feet. Borehole backfilled with auger cuttings.i 1 sSi i 5 s *I ? <08 i I§ i BORING NUMBER SB-3Northern Technologies, LLC 3522 4th Avenue South Fargo. ND 58103 P: (701)232-1822NTI PAGE 1 OF 2 Long: -96° 4' 13.332" Lat: 46° 41’ 40.056" NORTHERNTECHHOEOCIES.LIC CLIENT Ace Brandt c/o Tomlinson & Sons PROJECT NAME Brandt Lake Residence Boat House & Slope Stability PROJECT NUMBER 16-13556.700 PROJECT LOCATION Pelican Lake, Pelican Rapids. Minnesota GROUND ELEVATION 1336.4 ft GROUND WATER LEVELS: AT TIME OF DRILLING — No groundwater encountered AT END OF DRILLING —________________________ DATE STARTED 6/3/16 COMPLETED 6/3/16 HOLE SIZE 6 1/2 in. DRILUNG CONTRACTOR NTI DRILLING METHOD 3 1/4 in H.S.A LOGGED BY Chris Nelson CAVE IN (ft) _NA________ NOTES_______________ CHECKED BY Bret Anderson FROST DEPTH (ft) NA AFTER DRILLING ATTERBERG LIMITSUJzUJ ori- 3 2 t- UJ Wl- Q.5CO LU Hi02 UJ>a.t s?X Q.isP£. ui t OiLf (/)LU S-I sli|2 itMATERIAL DESCRIPTION Z o?<LUHtlUtS§i CO IQOO>CD CO u.2ODCUJ<o Q.DC D.QCO O.0 AUTOPSOIL, ORGANIC CLAY, (OH) black /T336J. 1FILL, SANDY CLAY, gray to black, trace cobbles, trace organics 2-2-344t 1.8 102 23 Ia:STI 71 1.26.0 1330.4 3 %FILL, SAND, brown, medium to coarse grained, trace gravelS ETf 1-2-30151I1327.49.0 LEAN CLAY, (CL) brown, medium, with lenses & layers of sand 10I w 3-3-4111 1.8 115 20III•s I STimo614.0 1322.4ISILT, (ML) brown, rather stiff1 c 4-5-7111 1.7 107 26(12)16.5 1319.9 I SILTY FAT CLAY, (CH) dark gray to brown, with lenses & layers of sand and silt I 108 3.2I?19.0 1317.4 I FAT CLAY, (CH) dark gray to brown, rather stiff, with ienses of silt 20 3-4-5117 1.9 91 33I.M VI ss ^ 10 3-6-6 I 122 3.6 96 29(12)I*3-5-6122 3.1 105 24(11) I 27.0 1309.4IFAT CLAY, (CH) dark gray, rather stiff to stiff£ I130o Yl ss ^ 12 4-5-7117 3.2 100 27I(12) s IS2 i Yl ss13 3-5-7111 2.2 111 23(12) II 40I I Yl ss14 4-5-7106 3.0 100 295(12) I Ia Y ss15 4-7-9106 2.8 105 24IS (16) s 50i an 5-7-9100 1033.1 24 (Continued Next Page) i^NTI =5£,.s,llc BORING NUMBER SB-3Northern Technologies, LLC 3522 4th Avenue South Fargo, ND 58103 P; (701)232-1822 PAGE 2 OF 2 Long; -96“ 4’ 13.332” Lat: 46“ 41’40.056" CLIENT Ace Brandt do Tomlinson & Sons PROJECT NAME Brandt Lake Residence Boat House & Siope Stabiiitv PROJECT NUMBER 16-13556.700 PROJECT LOCATION Pelican Lake, Peiican Rapids, Minnesota ATTERBERG LIMiTSUJzUJ tri- 3Z 1- UJ WHo5 0.§CO uT i|ioz UJO>-ccX 0.onUl t 9 COUJ iz CL MATERiAL DESCRiPTiON o><>Q zo UJPb5 3 bSsi ZCO1Qoo>35o to u.O Z5occUJ3<<j CLOCCLOto CL HU\J1FAT CLAY, (CH) dark gray, rather stiff to stiff 53.0 (continued)___________________________1263.4 A LEAN CLAY. (CL) dark gray, stiff to rather stiff 6-8-10100 2.9 122 15(18) 60 Yl ss ^ 18 5-8-1094 2.3 124 15 29 11 18(18) II Yl ss^ 19 5-8-1089 3.3 121 15(18) i i 70 Y ss ^ 20 5-8-1089 2.3 122 16(18) s3 oII3 y\ ss 1A[ 21 5-7-81 125 171.376.0 1260.4i (15)1 Bottom of borehoie at 76.0 feet. Borehoie backfiiied vrith auger cuttings.IS I I 3;i ec 1 i I1 g§ I3 I5 g : f3i i Z § ii Iii I S i Ii!II!i i !i!! TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY