Geotechnical Report Bundle Final
February 21, 2022 HGTS Project Number: 21-1312
Ms. Gayle Morin
1441 Lake Lucy Road
Chanhassen, MN
Re: Geotechnical Exploration Report, Proposed Single-Family Homes, 1441 Lake Lucy
Road, Chanhassen, Minnesota.
Dear Ms. Morin:
We have completed the geotechnical exploration report for the proposed homes at 1441 Lake
Lucy Road in Chanhassen, Minnesota. A brief summary of our results and recommendations
is presented below. Specific details regarding our procedures, results and recommendations
follow in the attached geotechnical exploration report.
Four (4) soil borings were completed for this project that encountered about 1 foot of topsoil
underlain by sandy lean clay and clayey sand glacial till deposits that extended to the
termination depths of the borings. Groundwater was not encountered in the soil borings while
drilling and sampling or after removal of the auger from the boreholes.
The vegetation and topsoil are not suitable for foundation support and will need to be
removed and replaced as needed with suitable compacted engineered fill. It is our opinion
that the underlying native glacial till soils are suitable for foundation support.
With the building pad prepared as recommended it is our opinion that the foundations for the
proposed building can be designed for a net allowable soil bearing capacity up to 2,000 pounds
per square foot.
Thank you for the opportunity to assist you on this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Paul Gionfriddo at 612-729-2959.
Sincerely,
Haugo GeoTechnical Services
Jesse Miller, E.I.T. Paul Gionfriddo, P.E.
Staff Engineer Senior Engineer
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION REPORT
PROJECT:
Proposed Single-Family Homes
1441 Lake Lucy Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota
PREPARED FOR:
Ms. Gayle Morin
1441 Lake Lucy Road
Chanhassen, MN
PREPARED BY:
Haugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Avenue South
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55407
Haugo GeoTechnical Services Project: 21-1312
February 21, 2022
I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my
direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Professional Engineer under the laws of
the State of Minnesota.
Paul Gionfriddo, P.E.
Senior Engineer
License Number: 23093
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Description 1
1.2 Purpose 1
1.3 Site Description 1
1.4 Scope of Services 1
1.5 Documents Provided 2
1.6 Locations and Elevations 2
2.0 FIELD PROCEDURES 2
3.0 RESULTS 3
3.1 Soil Conditions 3
3.2 Groundwater 3
3.3 Laboratory Testing 4
3.4 OSHA Soil Classification 4
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4
4.1 Proposed Construction 4
4.2 Discussion 5
4.3 Site Grading Recommendations 5
4.4 Dewatering 6
4.5 Groundwater Separation Distances 7
4.6 Interior Slabs 7
4.7 Below Grade Walls 7
4.8 Exterior Slabs 8
4.9 Site Grading and Drainage 9
4.10 Utilities 9
4.11 Ponds 9
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 10
5.1 Excavation 10
5.2 Observations 10
5.3 Backfill and Fills 10
5.4 Testing 10
5.5 Winter Construction 10
6.0 PROCEDURES 11
6.1 Soil Classification 11
6.2 Groundwater Observations 11
7.0 GENERAL 11
7.1 Subsurface Variations 11
7.2 Review of Design 11
7.3 Groundwater Fluctuations 11
7.4 Use of Report 12
7.5 Level of Care 12
APPENDIX
Boring Location Sketch
Soil Boring Logs, SB-1 thru SB-4
Descriptive Terminology
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
Ms. Gayle Morin in conjunction with her civil engineering consultants, Civil Site Group, is
preparing to split the property at 1441 Lake Lucy Road in Chanhassen, Minnesota and
potentially construct 2 new homes on the newly spit parcels. Haugo GeoTechnical Services
(HGTS) was retained to perform a geotechnical exploration to evaluate the suitability of site
soil conditions to support the proposed homes.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this geotechnical exploration was to characterize subsurface soil and
groundwater conditions and provide recommendations for foundation design and
construction of the proposed residences.
1.3 Site Description
The project site is a residential lot which carries the mailing address of 1441 Lake Lucy Road
in Chanhassen, Minnesota. We understand the existing lot was or will be split into 3 lots and
new homes will be built on 2 of the newly split lots.
A home with an attached garage and bituminous driveway existed on the northern portion of
the overall property. Areas surrounding the home were generally wooded. The remaining
portions of the property contained wooded areas and ponds and wetlands.
Site topography varied significantly and ranged from about elevation 1020 along Lake Lucy
Road to about elevation 960 near Lake Lucy on the south end of the property. Ground surface
elevations at the soil boring locations ranged from about 968 to 978 feet above mean sea level
(MSL).
1.4 Scope of Services
Our services were performed in accordance with the Haugo GeoTechnical Services proposal
21-1312 dated December 21, 2021. Our scope of services was performed under the terms of
our General Conditions and limited to the following tasks:
Completing two (4) standard penetration test (SPT) borings, extending each to
nominal depths of 20 feet.
Sealing the boreholes in accordance with MDH requirements.
Visually/manually classifying samples recovered from the soil borings.
Obtaining ground surface elevations and GPS coordinates at the soil boring locations.
Performing laboratory tests on select soil samples.
Preparing soil boring logs describing the materials encountered and the results of
groundwater level measurements.
Preparing an engineering report describing soil and groundwater conditions, and
providing recommendations for foundation support.
2
1.5 Documents Provided
To aid in our evaluation, we were provided with an untitled, single-page plan sheet that we
assume was prepared by Civil Site Group. The plan sheet showed a layout of the existing
property, the proposed property boundaries, hand-drawn annotations showing the proposed
soil boring locations, proposed home outlines, infiltration basin outlines, and utility details
overlain onto and aerial photograph. The map did not include a signature or date.
We were also provided with a document titled “Easement Agreement” from the Office of
County Recorder – Carver County Minnesota, dated February 4, 1999. The document listed
details including, but not limited to: Creation of Easement Rights, Construction
Reconstruction, Maintenance and Repair, and Miscellaneous Provisions. The document was
drafted by Bruce A. Boeder of Lambert & Boeder, P.L.L.P.
Except for the documents described above specific architectural, structural or civil engineering
plans were not provided.
1.6 Locations and Elevations
The soil boring locations were selected by Civil Site Group. The approximate locations of the
soil borings are shown on the plan sheet in the Appendix. The sketch is the plan sheet that was
prepared and provided by Civil Site Group.
We attempted to obtain the ground surface elevations and coordinates at the soil boring
locations using GPS equipment but the GPS unit could not capture a signal which we assume
was due to tree cover. We therefore estimated the ground surface elevations at the boring
locations based on topographic information from the plan sheet provided.
2.0 FIELD PROCEDURES
Four (4) standard penetration test borings were advanced on February 15, 2022 by HGTS with
a rotary drilling rig, using continuous flight augers to advance the boreholes. Representative
samples were obtained from the borings, using the split-barrel sampling procedures in general
accordance with ASTM Specification D-1586. In the split-barrel sampling procedure, a 2-inch
O.D. split-barrel spoon is driven into the ground with a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches.
The number of blows required to drive the sampling spoon the last 12 inches of an 18-inch
penetration is recorded as the standard penetration resistance value, or "N" value. The results
of the standard penetration tests are indicated on the boring logs. The samples were sealed in
containers and provided to HGTS for testing and soil classification.
Field log of each boring was prepared by HGTS. The logs contain visual classifications of the
soil materials encountered during drilling, as well as the driller's interpretation of the
subsurface conditions between samples and water observation notes. The final boring logs
included with this report represent an interpretation of the field logs and include
modifications based on visual/manual method observation of the samples.
The soil boring logs, general terminology for soil description and identification, and
classification of soils for engineering purposes are also included in the appendix. The soil
3
boring logs identify and describe the materials encountered, the relative density or consistency
based on the Standard Penetration resistance (N-value, “blows per foot”) and groundwater
observations.
The strata changes were inferred from the changes in the samples and auger cuttings. The
depths shown as changes between strata are only approximate. The changes are likely
transitions, variations can occur beyond the location of the borings.
3.0 RESULTS
3.1 Soil Conditions
It should be noted that soils were frozen to a depth of about 2 to 3 feet below the ground
surface at the time of drilling .
At the surface, the soil borings encountered about 1 foot of topsoil consisting of silty clayey
sand, silty clay, and sandy lean clay that were black and dark brown in color and contained
traces of roots.
The topsoil was underlain by glacial till deposits that extended to the termination depths of
the soil borings. The glacial till consisted of sandy lean clay and clayey sand that were brown
and gray in color and contained varying amounts of gravel. A sand seam within clayey glacial
till was noted at a depth of about 10 feet in soil boring SB-2.
Penetration resistance values (N-Values), shown as blows per foot (bpf) on the boring logs,
within the sandy lean clay glacial till ranged from 6 to 22 bpf, indicating a medium to very
stiff consistency. N-Values within the clayey sand glacial till was 6 bpf, indicating a loose
relative density or medium consistency.
3.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was not encountered in the soil borings while drilling and sampling or after
removal of the auger from the boreholes. Groundwater appears to be below the depths
explored by our borings. We do not anticipate that groundwater will be encountered during
construction.
Water levels were measured on the dates as noted on the boring logs and the period of water
level observations was relatively short. Given the cohesive nature of soils encountered, it is
possible that insufficient time was available for groundwater to seep into the borings and rise
to its hydrostatic level. Groundwater monitoring wells or piezometers would be required to
more accurately determine water levels. Seasonal and annual fluctuations in the groundwater
levels should be expected.
4
3.3 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory moisture content and P-200 content tests were performed on selected samples
recovered from the soil borings. Moisture contents ranged from about 19 to 25 ½ percent.
These values indicate the soils were likely above their assumed optimum soil moisture
content. The P-200 content is a measure of the silt and clay sized particles (fines) in the soils
which can affect soil infiltration rates. In general. the greater the P-200 content of a sample the
less permeable the soils will be. Table 1 below summarizes the results of the laboratory tests.
Results of the moisture content tests and P-200 tests are also shown on the boring logs adjacent
to the sample tested.
Table 1. Summary of Laboratory Tests
Boring
Number
Sample
Number
Depth
(feet)
Moisture Content
(%) *
P-200 Content
(%) *
SB-1 SS-6 5 21 -
SB-2 SS-2 5 17 ½ 52
SB-3 SS-14 5 25 ½ 47 ½
SB-3 SS-15 10 20 ½ 55 ½
SB-4 SS-10 5 19 -
*Moisture and P-200 content values rounded to the nearest ½ percent.
3.4 OSHA Soil Classification
At the anticipated excavation depths, the soil borings encountered sandy lean clay and clayey
sand, corresponding to the ASTM Classifications CL and SC, respectively. Soils identified as
CL will generally be Type B soils under Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) guidelines while soils identified as SC will generally be Type C soils.
An OSHA-approved qualified person should review the soil classification in the field.
Excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P,
“Excavations and Trenches.” This document states excavation safety is the responsibility of
the contractor. The project specifications should reference these OSHA requirements.
4.0 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Proposed Construction
Specific architectural, structural or civil engineering or construction plans were not provided.
For the purposes of this evaluation, we assume the new homes will have walkout or lookout
style foundations with one or two stories above grade. We anticipate the main floors will bear
slightly above existing grades with the basement floors bearing about 10 feet below the main
floor level.
The new homes are assumed to consist of cast-in-place concrete foundation walls supported
on concrete spread footings with above grade construction consisting of wood framing, a
pitched roof and asphalt shingles. Based on the assumed construction we estimate wall
5
loadings will range from about 2 to 3 kips (2,000 to 3,000 pounds) per lineal foot and column
loads, if any will be less than 75 kips (75,000 pounds).
If the proposed loads exceed these values, the proposed grades differ by more than 2 feet from
the assumed values or if the design or location of the proposed building changes, we should
be informed. Additional analyses and revised recommendations may be necessary.
4.2 Discussion
The vegetation and topsoil are compressible and are not suitable for foundation support.
These materials will need to be removed from below the building and oversize areas and
replaced as needed with suitable compacted engineered fill.
It is our opinion that the underlying native glacial soils are suitable for foundation support
and based on the borings we do not anticipate that soil corrections in excess of stripping the
topsoil will be required.
Groundwater was not encountered in the borings while drilling and sampling or after removal
of the auger from the boreholes. We generally do not anticipate that groundwater will be
encountered during construction and do not anticipate that dewatering will be required.
With the building pad prepared as recommended, it is our opinion the footings can be
designed for a net allowable bearing pressure up to 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf).
The following sections provide recommendations for foundation design and construction.
4.3 Site Grading Recommendations
Excavation We recommend that all vegetation, topsoil and any soft or otherwise unsuitable
soils, if encountered, be removed from below the proposed building and oversize areas. Table
2 below summarizes the anticipated excavation depths at the soil boring locations. Excavation
depths may vary and could be deeper.
Table 2. Anticipated Excavation Depths
Boring
Number
Estimated
Surface
Elevation
(feet)
Anticipated
Excavation Depth
(feet)*
Anticipated
Excavation
Elevation (feet)*
Approximate
Groundwater
Elevation
(feet)*
SB-1 Estimated 978 1 Estimated 977 NE
SB-2 Estimated 972 Pond – Cut to Grade Cut to Grade NE
SB-3 Estimated 970 Pond – Cut to Grade Cut to Grade NE
SSB-4 Estimated 968 1 Estimated 967 NE
* = Excavation and groundwater elevations were rounded to nearest ½ foot. NE = Not Encountered
Oversizing In areas where the excavations extend below the proposed footing elevations, the
excavations require oversizing. We recommend the perimeter of the excavation be extended
a foot outside the proposed footprint for every foot below footing grade (1H:1V oversizing).
The purpose of the oversizing is to provide lateral support of the foundation.
6
Fill Material Fill required to attain site grades may consist of any debris-free, non-organic
mineral soil. Except we recommend that fill or backfill placed in wet excavations or within 2
feet of the groundwater table, if encountered, consist of granular soil (sand) with less than 5
percent passing the number 200 sieve and at least 50 percent retained on the number 40 sieve.
The clayey glacial till soils, excavated during foundation construction appear to be generally
suitable for reuse as structural fill or backfill. However, moisture contents ranged from about
19 to 25 ½ percent, indicating the soils were likely above their assumed optimum soil moisture
contents based on the standard Proctor test. Soils that will be reused as fill or backfill could
require some moisture conditioning (drying) to meet the recommend compaction levels.
Summer months are typically more favorable for drying wet soils.
Topsoil, organic soils or soils that are black in color are not suitable for reuse as structural fill
or backfill.
Backfilling We recommend that backfill placed to attain site grades be compacted to a
minimum of 95 percent of its standard Proctor density (ASTM D 698). Granular fill classified
as SP or SP-SM should be placed within 65 percent to 105 percent of its optimum moisture
content as determined by the standard Proctor. Other fill soils should be placed within 3
percentage points above and 1 percentage point below its optimum moisture content as
determined by the standard Proctor. All fill should be placed in thin lifts and be compacted
with a large self-propelled vibratory compactor operating in vibratory mode.
Foundations We recommend the perimeter footings bear a minimum of 42 inches below the
exterior grade for frost protection. Interior footings may be placed immediately below the
slab provided construction does not occur during below freezing weather conditions.
Foundation elements in unheated areas (i.e., deck or porch footings) should bear at least 5 feet
below exterior grade for frost protection.
We anticipate the foundations and floor slabs will bear on compacted clayey engineered fill or
clayey glacial till deposits. With the building pad(s) prepared as recommended, it is our
opinion the footings can be designed for a net allowable bearing pressure up to 2,000 pounds
per square foot (psf).
We anticipate total and differential settlement of the foundations will be less than 1 inch and
½ inch, respectively, across a 30-foot span.
4.4 Dewatering
Groundwater was not encountered in the soil borings while drilling and sampling or after
removal of the auger from the boreholes. We do not anticipate that groundwater will be
encountered and do not anticipate that dewatering will be required.
4.5 Groundwater Separation Distances
We recommend that the lowest floor grades for the homes be constructed to meet City of
Chanhassen (City) building code requirements with respect to groundwater separation
distances. In the absence of township requirements, we recommend the lowest floor slab be
7
constructed to maintain at least a 4-foot separation between the lowest floor slab and the
observed groundwater and at least a 2-foot separation between the lowest floor slab and 100-
year flood levels of nearby ponds, wetlands or other surface water features.
4.6 Interior Slabs
The anticipated floor subgrade will consist of compacted clayey engineered fill or clayey
glacial till deposits. It is our opinion a modulus of subgrade reaction, k, of 100 pounds per
square inch per inch (pci) of deflection may be used to design the floor.
If floor coverings or coatings less permeable than the concrete slab will be used, we
recommend that a vapor retarder or vapor barrier be placed immediately beneath the slab.
Some contractors prefer to bury the vapor barrier or vapor retarder beneath a layer of sand to
reduce curling and shrinkage, but this practice often traps water between the slab and vapor
retarder or barrier. Regardless of where the vapor retarder or vapor barrier is placed, we
recommend consulting the floor covering manufacturer regarding the appropriate type, use
and installation of the vapor retarder or vapor barrier to preserve the warranty.
We recommend following all state and local building codes with regards to a radon mitigation
plan beneath interior slabs.
4.7 Below Grade Walls
We recommend general waterproofing of the below grade walls. We recommend either
placing drainage composite against the backs of the exterior walls or backfilling adjacent to
the walls with sand having less than 50 percent of the particles by weight passing the #40 sieve
and less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing the #200 sieve. The sand backfill
should be placed within 2 feet horizontally of the wall. We recommend the balance of the
backfill for the walls consist of sand however the sand may contain up to 20 percent of the
particles by weight passing the #200 sieve.
We recommend installing drain tile behind the below grade walls, adjacent to the wall footing
and below the slab elevation. Preferably the drain tile should consist of perforated pipe
embedded in gravel. A geotextile filter fabric should encase the pipe and gravel. The drain
tile should be routed to a storm sewer, sump pump or other suitable disposal site.
Foundation walls or below grade (basement) walls will have lateral loads from the
surrounding soil transmitted to them. Active earth pressures can be used to design the below
grade walls if the walls are allowed to rotate slightly. If wall rotation cannot be tolerated, then
below grade wall design should be based on at-rest earth pressures. It is our opinion that the
estimated soil parameters presented in Table 3, can be used for below grade wall design.
These estimated soil parameters are based on the assumptions that the walls are drained, there
are no surcharge loads within a horizontal distance equal to the height of the wall and the
backfill is level.
8
Table 3. Estimated Soil Parameters
Soil Type
Estimated
Unit
Weight
(pcf)
Estimated
Friction
Angle
(degrees)
At-Rest
Pressure
(pcf)
Active Soil
Pressure
(pcf)
Passive Soil
Pressure
(pcf)
Sand
(SP or SP-SM) 120 32 55 35 390
Other Soils
(CL, SC) 135 28 70 50 375
Resistance to lateral earth pressures will be provided by passive resistance against the wall
footings and by sliding resistance along the bottom of the wall footings. We recommend a
sliding coefficient of 0.35. This value does not include a factor of safety.
4.8 Exterior Slabs
Exterior slabs will likely be underlain by clayey soils which are considered moderately to
highly frost susceptible. If these soils become saturated and freeze, frost heave may occur.
This heave can be a nuisance in front of doors and at other critical grade areas. One way to
help reduce the potential for heaving is to remove the frost-susceptible soils below the slabs
down to bottom of footing grades and replace them with non-frost-susceptible backfill
consisting of sand having less than 5 percent of the particles by weight passing the number
200 sieve.
If this approach is used and the excavation bottoms terminate in non-free draining granular
soil, we recommend a drain tile be installed along the bottom outer edges of the excavation to
collect and remove any water that may accumulate within the sand. The bottom of the
excavation should be graded away from the building.
If the banks of the excavations to remove the frost-susceptible soils are not sloped, abrupt
transitions between the frost-susceptible and non-frost-susceptible backfill will exist along
which unfavorable amounts of differential heaving may occur. Such transitions could exist
between exterior slabs and sidewalks, between exterior slabs and pavements and along the
slabs themselves if the excavations are confined to only the building entrances. To address
this issue, we recommend sloping the excavations to remove frost-susceptible soils at a
minimum 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) gradient.
An alternative method of reducing frost heave is to place a minimum of 2 inches of extruded
polystyrene foam insulation beneath the slabs and extending it about 4 feet beyond the slabs.
The insulation will reduce frost penetration into the underlying soil and reduce heave. Six to
twelve inches of granular soil is typically placed over the insulation to protect it during
construction.
Another alternative for reducing frost heave is to support the slabs on frost depth footings. A
void space of at least 4 inches should be provided between the slab and the underlying soil to
allow the soil to heave without affecting the slabs.
9
4.9 Site Grading and Drainage
We recommend the site be graded to provide positive run-off away from the proposed house.
We recommend landscaped areas be sloped a minimum of 6 inches within 10 feet of the
building and slabs be sloped a minimum of 2 inches. In addition, we recommend downspouts
with long splash blocks or extensions.
4.10 Utilities
We anticipate that new water and sanitary sewer utilities could be installed as part of this
project. We further anticipate that new utilities will bear at depths ranging from about 7 to 10
feet below the ground surface. At these depths we anticipate that the pipe will bear on
compacted engineered fill or glacial till soils which in our opinion are generally suitable for
pipe support. We recommend removing all vegetation, topsoil, and any soft or otherwise
unsuitable soils, if any, beneath utilities prior to placement.
We recommend bedding material be thoroughly compacted around the pipes. We
recommend trench backfill above the pipes be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent beneath
slabs and pavements, the exception being within 3 feet of the proposed pavement subgrade,
where 100 percent of standard Proctor density is required. In landscaped areas we
recommend a minimum compaction of 90 percent.
Groundwater was not encountered in the soil borings while drilling and sampling or after
removal of the auger from the boreholes.
4.11 Ponds
Based on the plans/maps provided it appears the project will include constructing stormwater
ponds on each of the new lots. Design elevations of the proposed pond was not provided.
Borings SB-2 and SB-3 were completed near or within the proposed ponds and encountered
sandy lean clay and clayey sand. It is our opinion that the infiltration rates presented in Table
5 can be used for stormwater pond/infiltration basin design. These values were obtained from
tables included in the “Minnesota Storm Water Manual”.
Table 5. Design Infiltration Rates
In-situ soils Soil Description Hydrologic Soil
Group
Design Infiltration Rate
(inches/hour)
SC Clayey Sand D 0.06
CL Lean Clay/Sandy Lean Clay D 0.06
Field tests (double ring infiltrometer) can be performed within the proposed infiltration basin
area to verify infiltration rates of the in-situ soils. We would be pleased to provide these
services if required or requested.
10
5.0 CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
5.1 Excavation
At the anticipated excavation depths, the soil borings encountered sandy lean clay and clayey
sand, corresponding to the ASTM Classifications CL and SC, respectively. Soils identified as
CL will generally be Type B soils under Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) guidelines while soils identified as SC will generally be Type C soils.
Temporary excavations in Type C soils should be constructed at a minimum of 1 ½ foot
horizontal to every 1-foot vertical within excavations. Slopes constructed in this manner may
still exhibit surface sloughing. If site constraints do not allow the construction of slopes with
these dimensions, then temporary shoring may be required.
5.2 Observations
A geotechnical engineer or qualified engineering technician should observe the excavation
subgrade to evaluate if the subgrade soils are similar to those encountered in the borings and
adequate to support the proposed construction.
5.3 Backfill and Fills
We recommend moisture conditioning all soils that will be used as fill or backfill in accordance
with Section 4.3 above. We recommend that fill and backfill be placed in lifts not exceeding 4
to 12 inches, depending on the size of the compactor and materials used.
5.4 Testing
We recommend density tests of backfill and fills placed for the proposed house foundations.
Samples of the proposed materials should be submitted to our laboratory prior to placement
for evaluation of their suitability and to determine their optimum moisture content and
maximum dry density (Standard Proctor).
5.5 Winter Construction
If site grading and construction is anticipated to proceed during cold weather, all snow and
ice should be removed from cut and fill areas prior to additional grading and placement of
fill. No fill should be placed on frozen soil and no frozen soil should be used as fill or backfill.
Frost should not be allowed to penetrate below footings and foundations.
Concrete delivered to the site should meet the temperature requirements of ASTM and/or
ACI. Concrete should not be placed on frozen soil. Concrete should be protected from
freezing until the necessary strength is obtained. Frost should not be permitted to penetrate
below the footings.
11
6.0 PROCEDURES
6.1 Soil Classification
The drill crew chief visually and manually classified the soils encountered in the borings in
general accordance with ASTM D 2488, “Description and Identification of Soils (Visual-
Manual Procedure).” Soil terminology notes are included in the Appendix. The samples were
returned to our laboratory for review of the field classification by a soils engineer. Samples
will be retained for a period of 30 days.
6.2 Groundwater Observations
Immediately after taking the final samples in the bottom of the boring, the hole was checked
for the presence of groundwater. Immediately after removing the augers from the borehole
the hole was once again checked and the depth to water and cave-in depths were noted.
7.0 GENERAL
7.1 Subsurface Variations
The analyses and recommendations presented in this report are based on data obtained from
a limited number of soil boring(s). Variations can occur away from the boring, the nature of
which may not become apparent until additional exploration work is completed, or
construction is conducted. A reevaluation of the recommendations in this report should be
made after performing on-site observations during construction to note the characteristics of
any variations. The variations may result in additional foundation costs and it is suggested
that a contingency be provided for this purpose.
It is recommended that we be retained to perform the observation and testing program during
construction to evaluate whether the design is as expected, if any design changes have affected
the validity of our recommendations, and if our recommendations have been correctly
interpreted and implemented in the designs, specifications and construction methods. This
will allow correlation of the soil conditions encountered during construction to the soil borings
and test pits and will provide continuity of professional responsibility.
7.2 Review of Design
This report is based on the design of the proposed structures as related to us for preparation
of this report. It is recommended that we be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the
design and specifications. With the review, we will evaluate whether any changes have
affected the validity of the recommendations and whether our recommendations have been
correctly interpreted and implemented in the design and specifications.
7.3 Groundwater Fluctuations
We made water level measurements in the borings at the times and under the conditions stated
on the boring log. The data was interpreted in the text of this report. The period of observation
was relatively short and fluctuations in the groundwater level may occur due to rainfall,
12
flooding, irrigation, spring thaw, drainage, and other seasonal and annual factors not evident
at the time the observations were made. Design drawings and specifications and construction
planning should recognize the possibility of fluctuations.
7.4 Use of Report
This report is for the exclusive use of Ms. Gayle Morin and her design team to use to design
the proposed structures and prepare construction documents. In the absence of our written
approval, we make no representation and assume no responsibility to other parties regarding
this report. The data, analysis and recommendations may not be appropriate for other
structures or purposes. We recommend that parties contemplating other structures or
purposes contact us.
7.5 Level of Care
Haugo GeoTechnical Services has used the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised under
similar circumstance by members of the profession currently practicing in this locality. No
warranty expressed or implied is made.
APPENDIX
S00°10'43"W 1131.8 +/-N00°10'43"E 1220.1 +/-1161.341081.20[12][13
]
Sewe
r
Easemen
t
pe
rDoc.
Nos
.
244417
&
244418[13] Turnaround EasementPer Doc. No. 2444188"
PVC8" PVCExisting HouseExisting HouseDeck12" RCP[13] Temporary Easementper Doc. No. 244418Upper Level Deckw/ Walkout Beneath32LOT
2BLOC
K
1
SB-1
SB-4
SB-2
SB-3
1:30
Silty Clayey Sand, trace Roots, black, frozen. (Topsoil)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown and gray, wet, rather
stiff to very stiff. (Glacial Till)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, gray, wet, rather stiff. (Glacial
Till)
Bottom of borehole at 14.5 feet.
AU
5
SS
6
SS
7
SS
8
5-5-6
(11)
5-7-10
(17)
3-4-7
(11)
21
NOTES Ground Surface Elevation Estimated
GROUND ELEVATION 978 ft
LOGGED BY
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY PG
DATE STARTED 2/15/22 COMPLETED 2/15/22
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
DEPTH(ft)0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
MOISTURE CONT.(%)NOTESPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-1
CLIENT Gayle Morin
PROJECT NUMBER 21-1312
PROJECT NAME 1441 Lake Lucy Road
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 2/21/22 08:46 - C:\USERS\HGTS 3\DROPBOX (HGTS)\HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES\GINT PROJECT BACKUP\PROJECTS\21-1312 1441 LAKE LUCY ROAD.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Ave South
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Fax: 763-445-2238
Silty Clayey Sand, trace Roots, black, frozen. (Topsoil)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown and gray, wet, rather
stiff to very stiff. (Glacial Till)
P-200=52%
Sand Seam at about 10 feet
(CL) Sandy lean Clay, trace Gravel, gray, wet, stiff. (Glacial Till)
Bottom of borehole at 14.5 feet.
AU
1
SS
2
SS
3
SS
4
4-4-5
(9)
40-15-5
(20)
3-5-8
(13)
17.5
NOTES Ground Surface Elevation Estimated
GROUND ELEVATION 972 ft
LOGGED BY
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY PG
DATE STARTED 2/15/22 COMPLETED 2/15/22
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
DEPTH(ft)0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
MOISTURE CONT.(%)NOTESPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-2
CLIENT Gayle Morin
PROJECT NUMBER 21-1312
PROJECT NAME 1441 Lake Lucy Road
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 2/21/22 08:46 - C:\USERS\HGTS 3\DROPBOX (HGTS)\HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES\GINT PROJECT BACKUP\PROJECTS\21-1312 1441 LAKE LUCY ROAD.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Ave South
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Fax: 763-445-2238
Silty Clay, trace Roots, black, wet. (Topsoil)
(SC) Clayey Sand, fine grained, gray and brown, wet, loose.
(Glacial Till)
P-200=47.5
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown and gray, wet, rather
stiff. (Glacial Till)
P-200=55.5
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, gray, wet, rather stiff. (Glacial
Till)
Bottom of borehole at 14.5 feet.
AU
13
SS
14
SS
15
SS
16
3-3-3
(6)
3-4-2
(6)
3-5-7
(12)
25.5
20.5
NOTES Ground Surface Elevation Estimated
GROUND ELEVATION 970 ft
LOGGED BY
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY PG
DATE STARTED 2/15/22 COMPLETED 2/15/22
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
DEPTH(ft)0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
MOISTURE CONT.(%)NOTESPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-3
CLIENT Gayle Morin
PROJECT NUMBER 21-1312
PROJECT NAME 1441 Lake Lucy Road
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 2/21/22 08:46 - C:\USERS\HGTS 3\DROPBOX (HGTS)\HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES\GINT PROJECT BACKUP\PROJECTS\21-1312 1441 LAKE LUCY ROAD.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Ave South
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Fax: 763-445-2238
Sandy Lean Clay, trace Roots, dark brown, wet. (Topsoil)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, brown and gray, wet, very
stiff. (Glacial Till)
(CL) Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, gray, wet, stiff. (Glacial Till)
Bottom of borehole at 14.5 feet.
AU
9
SS
10
SS
11
SS
12
4-9-10
(19)
6-9-13
(22)
3-5-8
(13)
19
NOTES Ground Surface Elevation Estimated
GROUND ELEVATION 968 ft
LOGGED BY
DRILLING METHOD Hollow Stem Auger/Split Spoon
DRILLING CONTRACTOR HGTS GROUND WATER LEVELS:
CHECKED BY PG
DATE STARTED 2/15/22 COMPLETED 2/15/22
AT TIME OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AT END OF DRILLING --- Not Encountered
AFTER DRILLING --- Not Encountered
HOLE SIZE 3 1/4 inches
FINES CONTENT (%)
20 40 60 80
20 40 60 80
PL LLMC
DEPTH(ft)0.0
2.5
5.0
7.5
10.0
12.5 GRAPHICLOGMATERIAL DESCRIPTION
SAMPLE TYPENUMBERRECOVERY %(RQD)BLOWCOUNTS(N VALUE) SPT N VALUE
20 40 60 80
MOISTURE CONT.(%)NOTESPAGE 1 OF 1
BORING NUMBER SB-4
CLIENT Gayle Morin
PROJECT NUMBER 21-1312
PROJECT NAME 1441 Lake Lucy Road
PROJECT LOCATION Chanhassen, MN
GEOTECH BH PLOTS - GINT STD US LAB.GDT - 2/21/22 08:46 - C:\USERS\HGTS 3\DROPBOX (HGTS)\HAUGO GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES\GINT PROJECT BACKUP\PROJECTS\21-1312 1441 LAKE LUCY ROAD.GPJHaugo GeoTechnical Services
2825 Cedar Ave South
Minneapolis, MN 55407
Telephone: 612-729-2959
Fax: 763-445-2238