The URL can be used to link to this page

PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY COMMITTEE Agenda Packet 07202020CITY OF MUSKEGO PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY COMMITTEE AGENDA 07/20/2020 5:00 PM Muskego City Hall, Council Chambers, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes of the May 18th, 2020 Meeting STATUS OF PROJECTS Discussion update. No formal action may be taken on the following: Great Water Alliance Hillendale Reconstruction CTH Y - Racine Avenue - Pilak Creek Tributary Structure Replacement UNFINISHED BUSINESS Discussion update and possible action may be taken on any or all of the following: Request for Additional Turtle Crossing Signs on Durham Drive NEW BUSINESS Discussion update and possible action may be taken on any or all of the following: Request for Hidden Driveway Sign at S75W20051 Hillendale Drive Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at W188S7642 Oak Grove Drive NEW BUSINESS PLACED ON FILE (The following items have been placed on file for staff review. Upon completion of review, staff will submit a supplement detailing options and possible course action to committee members.) COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW ADJOURNMENT NOTICE IT IS POSSIBLE THAT MEMBERS OF AND POSSIBLY A QUORUM OF MEMBERS OF OTHER GOVERNMENTAL BODIES OF THE MUNICIPALITY MAY BE IN ATTENDANCE AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING TO GATHER INFORMATION; NO ACTION WILL BE TAKEN BY ANY GOVERNMENTAL BODY AT THE ABOVE-STATED MEETING OTHER THAN THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO ABOVE IN THIS NOTICE. ALSO, UPON REASONABLE NOTICE, EFFORTS WILL BE MADE TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF DISABLED INDIVIDUALS THROUGH APPROPRIATE AIDS AND SERVICES. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR TO REQUEST THIS SERVICE, PLEASE CONTACT MUSKEGO CITY HALL, (262) 679-4145.Packet Page 1 Unapproved CITY OF MUSKEGO PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY COMMITTEE MINUTES May 18, 2020 5:00 PM Muskego City Hall, W182 S8200 Racine Avenue CALL TO ORDER Alderperson Hammel called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Those present recited the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Alderpersons Hammel, Kapusta and Terrence; Scott Kroeger, Director of Public Works and Development Guests: Alderperson Madden STATEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICE The meeting was posted in accordance with open meeting laws. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Alderperson Kapusta made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 20, 2020, meeting. Alderperson Terrence seconded. Motion Passed 3 in favor. STATUS OF PROJECTS Discussion update. No formal action may be taken on any of the following: Great Water Alliance Director Kroeger stated the contract is out for bid. The link to the Great Water Alliance is on our website. The East side of Muskego will be greatly affected, including road closures. This is a very large project that has potential to span 2020 to 2022. The City just finished its third review and have returned the plans to Waukesha. The Public Information Meeting (PIM) was cancelled due to COVID-19 and will be rescheduled at a later date. Hillendale Reconstruction Director Kroeger stated the City reviewed 90% plans and after many discussions with homeowners and the engineers on this project, we are working to alter the ditches, where possible, to save as many trees as possible. Utility coordination has begun and preliminary work may begin this year. The City plans to put this project out to bid in Nov-Dec 2020, with a start date of March 2021, finishing in Fall 2021. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Discussion update and possible action may be taken on any or all of the following: NEW BUSINESS Discussion update and possible action may be taken on any or all of the following: Before Director Kroeger discussed the New Business listed below, he explained to our new Committee members how the process works for some of our approvals needed and why they come through Public Page 1 of 2 Approval of Minutes of the May 18th, 2020 Meeting Packet Page 2 Works. Acceptance of Public Watermain for Muskego School Apts/Commonwealth Alderperson Kapusta made a motion to accept the Public Watermain for Muskego School Apts. Seconded by Alderperson Hammel. Motion Passed 3 in favor. Acceptance of Public Watermain for Kwik Trip Alderperson Kapusta made a motion to accept the Public Watermain for Kwik Trip. Seconded by Alderperson Terrence. Motion Passed 3 in favor. Request for Additional Turtle Crossing Signs on Durham Drive Director Kroeger read through his memo regarding the requested signage and turned it over to the Committee for discussion. Alderperson Hammel is not a proponent of more signs. Alderperson Kapusta wants the City to reach out to the requestor for more specific information. Alderperson Madden confirmed that there are two signs (one each direction) already located in this area. The Committee continued to discuss this as a whole. Alderperson Kapusta made a motion to defer this decision until the City reaches out to the requestor for more specific location areas and how many additional signs would be needed. Seconded by Alderperson Terrence. Motion Passed 3 in favor. NEW BUSINESS PLACED ON FILE (The following items have been placed on file for staff review. Upon completion of review, staff will submit a supplement detailing options and possible course of action to committee members.) COMMUNICATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS AS AUTHORIZED BY LAW Director Kroeger stated the City has received numerous phone calls due to all the rainfall on Sunday. He stated we had a sanitary sewer failure in Lake Forest subdivision. Three manholes also failed. D.F. Tomasini will be out this week to do the repairs needed. He encouraged any residents present that wanted to speak to him to wait until after the conclusion of this meeting. ADJOURNMENT Alderperson Kapusta made a motion to adjourn at 5:20 PM. Alderperson Terrence seconded. Motion Passed 3 in favor. Respectfully Submitted, Wendy Fredlund Recording Secretary Page 2 of 2 Approval of Minutes of the May 18th, 2020 Meeting Packet Page 3 CITY OF MUSKEGO Staff Report to Public Works and Safety Committee To: Public Works and Safety Committee From: Scott Kroeger, PE, PLS, Public Works and Development Director Subject: Request for additional Turtle Crossing Signs on Durham Drive (Update) Date: May 18, 2020 (Revised July 20, 2020) The City of Muskego Public Works and Safety Committee has received a request to install additional Turtle Crossing signs on Durham Drive. Currently, there is one “Turtle Crossing” sign located south of the Durham boat launch on the west side of the road for the cars traveling south. The request is to add additional turtle crossing signs on Durham. I have inserted the request for you to review. “I am contacting you to request additional turtle crossing signs on Durham. (There's only 1!) There are many baby turtles being run over. Also, drivers are swerving to avoid them putting people at risk for accidents. Please consider the request. Thank You Donna Klappa S68W12584 Woods Rd” From an engineering standpoint here are my findings: 1. There is already a turtle crossing sign and not sure if additional signs would add more benefit 2. According to MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways) Chapter 2C – Warning Signs. Section 2C.02 Warning Signs = “The use of warning signs should be kept to a minimum as the unnecessary use of warning signs tends to breed disrespect for all signs.” There are three locations requested by the individual: On Durham, near the pond by Belle Chasse Pkwy. On Durham, near Hawks Trail by the pond On Moorland Road between Janesville and Woods road. Near the large pond. Recommendation for Action by the Committee: The committee should listen to all opinions and make a decision on this manner. If the decision is to add more signs, please indicate the number of signs, and the location(s) in reference to the existing sign. Page 1 of 1 Request for Additional Turtle Crossing Signs on Durham... Packet Page 4 CITY OF MUSKEGO Staff Report to Public Works and Safety Committee To: Public Works and Safety Committee From: Scott Kroeger, PE, PLS, Public Works and Development Director Subject: Request for Hidden Drive Sign (S75 W20051 Hillendale Drive) Date: July 20, 2020 A request has been made by a resident for a warning sign of “Hidden Drive” to be put up for the house located at the following residence, S75 W20051 Hillendale Drive. This house is located at the intersection of Field Drive and Hillendale Drive. Example of a “Hidden Drive” Sign This photo is looking northeast at the intersection. Please note the driveway is located at the intersection. The mailbox can be seen in front of the stop sign. Page 1 of 7 Request for Hidden Driveway Sign at S75W20051... Packet Page 5 This photo is looking northeast at the intersection. Please note the driveway is located at the intersection. The photos show that the foliage has been cut down enough to see the mailbox for the driveway. The stop sign is located right near the intersection. There is also a stop ahead warning sign along Hillendale Drive. Accident Data (Last 5 years) There has been one accident at the intersection in the last five years. A vehicle heading south on Hillendale Drive failed to stop at intersection and hit a car turning left from Field Drive onto Hillendale Drive. I have attached the report have occurred in front of his residence. Page 2 of 7 Request for Hidden Driveway Sign at S75W20051... Packet Page 6 Recommendation for Action by the Committee: City of Muskego staff would not recommend a hidden drive sign be place for this drive. The reasoning is due to how close this driveway is located to the intersection. There is a stop sign that is located right at the driveway. Traffic is coming to a complete stop at the driveway entrance. The stop warning sign and stop sign is making traffic slow down and come to a complete stop at the driveway. It would be redundant to have a Hidden Drive Sign in this same area. City of Muskego DPW staff definitely needs to keep trimming trees in the right of way along Hillendale Drive. This will allow vehicles to see the mailbox, driveway, and Stop sign. Page 3 of 7 Request for Hidden Driveway Sign at S75W20051... Packet Page 7 Agency Accident Number AC C I D E N T # PO L I C E # Police Number GE N E R A L I N F O R M A T I O N Reportable Accident On Emergency Amended MNKVBF8 DOT Document Number Document Override Number 15-22642 15 - 2 2 6 4 2 15-22642 15 - 2 2 6 4 2 12/02/2015 4 - Accident Date 0820 5 - Time of Accident (Military Time) 02 6 - Total Units 00 7 - Total Injured 00 8 - Total Killed WAUKESHA - 67 2 - County MUSKEGO - 74, CITY 3 - Municipality INTERSECTION11 - Accident Location 14 - On Hwy No. HILLENDALE DR 14 - On Street Name 14 - Bus/Frnt/Rmp 15 - Est. Distance 15 - Hwy. Dir 16 - Fr/At Hwy No. FIELD DR 16 - From/At Street Name 16 - Business/Frontage/Ramp 17 - Structure Type 17 - Structure Number 42.908740 12 - Latitude -88.164886 13 - Longitude MOTOR VEHICLE IN TRANSPORT 80 - First Harmful Event HEAD ON 93 - Manner of Collision NO CONTROL 112 - Access Control CURVE 113 - Road Curvature HILL 113 - Road Terrain BLACKTOP, BITUMINOUS, OR ASPHALT - 2 Surface Type NOT-PHYSICALLY-DIVIDED-(2-WAY TRAFFIC) 115 - Traffic Way ON-ROADWAY 117 - Relation To Roadway DAYLIGHT 114 - Light Condition WET 116 - Road Surface Condition SNOW 118 - Weather Hit and Run 9 Government Property 9 Fire 9 Photos Taken 9 Trailer or Towed 9 Truck, Bus, or Hazardous Materials 9 Load Spillage 9 Construction Zone 9 Names Exchanged 9 Supplemental Reports 101 Witness Statements 102 Measurements Taken 103 79 - E M S Number Operator/Pedestrian OP E R A T O R / P E D E S T R I A N Unit Status MOTOR VEHICLE IN TRANSPORT 81 - Most Harmful Event: Collision With SOUTH 23 - Dir Of Travel 35 24 - Speed Limit D CLASS 36 - Operating as Classified 37 - Endorsements 35 Operating Commercial Motor Vehicle R5621608703103 29 - Driver's License Number WI 30 - State 2019 31 - Expiration Year 34 - On Duty Accident RAMIREZ MONTOYA 25 - Operator/Pedestrian Last Name DANIEL 25 - First Name 25 - Middle Initial 25 - Suffix 01/31/1987 32 - Date Of Birth MALE 33 - Sex 8014 W DONGES BAY RD 26 - Address Street & Number 26 - PO Box MEQUON 27 - City WI 27 - State 53097 27 - Zip Code (414) 312-1924 EXT. 28 - Telephone Number FRONT-SEAT-LEFT-SIDE-(MC/BIKE DRIVER, TRAIN CONDUCTOR) 39 - Seat Position SHOULDER-BELT-AND-LAP-BELT-USED 40 - Safety Equipment N - NO APPARENT INJURY 38 - Injury Severity DEPLOYED 41 - Airbag NOT-EJECTED 42 - Ejected 44 Medical Transport NOT-TRAPPED 43 - Trapped/Extricated 92 - Pedestrian Location 92 - Pedestrian Action GOING-STRAIGHT 119 - What Driver Was Doing STOP-SIGN 120 - Traffic Control 01 62 - No. of Citations Issued 346.18(3) 64 - 1st Statute No.64 - 2nd Statute No.64 - 3rd Statute No.64 - 4th Statute No.64 - 5th Statute No. FAIL-TO-YIELD-RIGHT-OF-WAY, INATTENTIVE-DRIVING, DISREGARDED-TRAFFIC-CONTROL 122 - Driver Factors APPEARED NORMAL 88 - Driver or Pedestrian Cond NEITHER-ALCOHOL-NOR-DRUGS-PRESENT 89 - Substance Presence TEST NOT GIVEN 90 - Alcohol Test 90 - Alcohol Content TEST NOT GIVEN 91 - Drug Test 01 Accident Report of MV4000e 01/2005 Page PK2012 Wisconsin Motor Vehicle MNKVBF8 1 4 Page 4 of 7 Request for Hidden Driveway Sign at S75W20051... Packet Page 8 VE H I C L E VE H O W N E R Vehicle Vehicle Owner Insurance School Bus IN S 91 - Drugs Reported SNOW,-ICE,-OR-WET 124 - Highway Factors AUTOMOBILE 21 - Unit Type PASSENGER-CAR Vehicle Type 01 22 - Total Occupants 167MUP 56 - License Plate Number AUT 57 - Plate Type WI 58 - State 2016 59 - Exp Year 2G2WP552681100783 55 - Vehicle Identification Number 2008 50 - Year PONT 51 - Make GRAND PRIX 52 - Model 4D - 4DR 53 - Body Style SIL 54 - Color 100 - Skidmarks to Impact (Ft) FRONT, FRONT PASSENGER SIDE, FRONT DRIVER SIDE 94 - Vehicle Damage SEVERE 95 - Extent Of Damage Vehicle Towed Due To Damage 96 JOHNNIES TOWING 97 - Vehicle Removed By NOT-APPLICABLE 123 - Vehicle Factors 45 Vehicle Owner Same As Operator 46 - Vehicle Owner Last Name 46 - First Name 46 - Middle Initial 46 - Suffix Date Of Birth LOUS AUTO BODY DIV OF RUSCO MOTORS INC 46 - Company Name 3940 S 13TH ST 47- Address Street & Number 47 - PO Box MILWAUKEE 48 - City WI 48 - State 53221 48 - Zip Code (414) 481-9449 EXT. 49 - Telephone Number ARTISAN-AND-TRUCKERS-CASUALTY-CO 63 - Liability Insurance Company Policy Holder Same As Owner 60 61 - Policy Holder Last Name 61 - Policy Holder First Name DANIEL RAMIREZ MONTOYA 61 - Policy Holder Company 01 01 01 01 BU S FromTo Bus Travelling to/from School Name Body Make Seating Capacity School District Contracted With Operator/Pedestrian Unit Status MOTOR VEHICLE IN TRANSPORT 81 - Most Harmful Event: Collision With EAST 23 - Dir Of Travel 35 24 - Speed Limit D CLASS 36 - Operating as Classified 37 - Endorsements 35 Operating Commercial Motor Vehicle S5628176471703 29 - Driver's License Number WI 30 - State 2019 31 - Expiration Year 34 - On Duty Accident SOMMERS 25 - Operator/Pedestrian Last Name TERRY 25 - First Name S 25 - Middle Initial 25 - Suffix 06/17/1964 32 - Date Of Birth FEMALE 33 - Sex Accident Report of MV4000e 01/2005 Page PK2012 Wisconsin Motor Vehicle Accident Report of MV4000e 01/2005 Page PK2012 Wisconsin Motor Vehicle MNKVBF8 2 424 Page 5 of 7 Request for Hidden Driveway Sign at S75W20051... Packet Page 9 VE H I C L E VE H O W N E R Vehicle Vehicle Owner Insurance OP E R A T O R / P E D E S T R I A N IN S S75W21015 FIELD DR 26 - Address Street & Number 26 - PO Box MUSKEGO 27 - City WI 27 - State 53150 27 - Zip Code (262) 955-3629 EXT. 28 - Telephone Number FRONT-SEAT-LEFT-SIDE-(MC/BIKE DRIVER, TRAIN CONDUCTOR) 39 - Seat Position SHOULDER-BELT-AND-LAP-BELT-USED 40 - Safety Equipment N - NO APPARENT INJURY 38 - Injury Severity DEPLOYED 41 - Airbag NOT-EJECTED 42 - Ejected 44 Medical Transport NOT-TRAPPED 43 - Trapped/Extricated 92 - Pedestrian Location 92 - Pedestrian Action MAKING-LEFT-TURN 119 - What Driver Was Doing NO-CONTROL 120 - Traffic Control 00 62 - No. of Citations Issued 64 - 1st Statute No.64 - 2nd Statute No.64 - 3rd Statute No.64 - 4th Statute No.64 - 5th Statute No. NOT-APPLICABLE 122 - Driver Factors APPEARED NORMAL 88 - Driver or Pedestrian Cond NEITHER-ALCOHOL-NOR-DRUGS-PRESENT 89 - Substance Presence TEST NOT GIVEN 90 - Alcohol Test 90 - Alcohol Content TEST NOT GIVEN 91 - Drug Test 91 - Drugs Reported SNOW,-ICE,-OR-WET 124 - Highway Factors AUTOMOBILE 21 - Unit Type PASSENGER-CAR Vehicle Type 01 22 - Total Occupants WB9WDQ 56 - License Plate Number AMA 57 - Plate Type WI 58 - State 2016 59 - Exp Year 3VWDP7AJ3CM330291 55 - Vehicle Identification Number 2012 50 - Year VOLK 51 - Make JETTA SE 52 - Model 4D - 4DR 53 - Body Style WHI 54 - Color 100 - Skidmarks to Impact (Ft) FRONT, FRONT PASSENGER SIDE, FRONT DRIVER SIDE 94 - Vehicle Damage SEVERE 95 - Extent Of Damage Vehicle Towed Due To Damage 96 JOHNNIES TOWING 97 - Vehicle Removed By NOT-APPLICABLE 123 - Vehicle Factors 45 Vehicle Owner Same As Operator SOMMERS 46 - Vehicle Owner Last Name TERRY 46 - First Name S 46 - Middle Initial 46 - Suffix 06/17/1964 Date Of Birth 46 - Company Name S75W21015 FIELD DR 47- Address Street & Number 47 - PO Box MUSKEGO 48 - City WI 48 - State 53150 48 - Zip Code (262) 955-3629 EXT. 49 - Telephone Number USAA-CASUALTY-INS-CO 63 - Liability Insurance Company Policy Holder Same As Owner 60 SOMMERS 61 - Policy Holder Last Name TERRY 61 - Policy Holder First Name 61 - Policy Holder Company 02 02 02 02 Accident Report of MV4000e 01/2005 Page PK2012 Wisconsin Motor Vehicle MNKVBF8 3 4 Page 6 of 7 Request for Hidden Driveway Sign at S75W20051... Packet Page 10 School Bus 02 BU S FromTo Bus Travelling to/from School Name Body Make Seating Capacity School District Contracted With Trailer 01 TR L 106 - Power Unit Number License Plate Number Plate Type State Expiration Year Trailer Make Unit Type Vehicle Identification Number 105 - Photos By DI A G R A M A N D N A R R A T I V E Diagram and Narrative THE OPERATOR OF UNIT #1 WAS SOUTHBOUND ON HILLENDALE DRIVE FROM A POSTED STOP SIGN. THE OPERATOR OF UNIT #2 HAD NO TRAFFIC CONTROL. UNIT #2 WAS EASTBOUND ON FIELD DRIVE AND ATTEMPTED TO TURN NORTHBOUND ON HILLENDALE DRIVE. THE OPERATOR OF UNIT #1 FAILED TO YIELD FROM THE POSTED STOP AND STRUCK UNIT #2. THE OPERATOR OF UNIT #1 WAS CITED FOR THAT VIOLATION. THE OPERATOR OF UNIT #1 WAS SOUTHBOUND ON HILLENDALE DRIVE FROM A POSTED STOP SIGN. THE OPERATOR OF UNIT #2 HAD NO TRAFFIC CONTROL. UNIT #2 WAS EASTBOUND ON FIELD DRIVE AND ATTEMPTED TO TURN NORTHBOUND ON HILLENDALE DRIVE. THE OPERATOR OF UNIT #1 FAILED TO YIELD FROM THE POSTED STOP AND STRUCK UNIT #2. THE OPERATOR OF UNIT #1 WAS CITED FOR THAT VIOLATION. OF F I C E R I N F O R M A T I O N 125 - First Name 125 - Middle Initial Officer Information LYNKIEWICZ 125 - Officer Last Name PETER 150 131 - Officer ID 129 - Law Enforcement Agency No. MUSKEGO POLICE DEPARTMENT 130 - Law Enforcement Agency Name W183 S8150 RACINE AVENUE 126 - Law Enforcement Agency Address Street & Number MUSKEGO 127 - City WI 127 - State 53150 127 - Zip Code (262) 679-4130 EXT. 128 - Telephone Number 12/02/2015 132 - Date Notified 0822 133 - Time Notified (Military Time) 0837 134 - Time Arrived (Military Time) 12/02/2015 135 - Date Of Report 15-22642 15-22642 19 - Special Study 18 - Agency Space Accident Report of MV4000e 01/2005 Page PK2012 Wisconsin Motor Vehicle MNKVBF8 4 4 Page 7 of 7 Request for Hidden Driveway Sign at S75W20051... Packet Page 11 CITY OF MUSKEGO Staff Report to Public Works and Safety Committee To: Public Works and Safety Committee From: Scott Kroeger, PE, PLS, Public Works and Development Director Subject: Request for waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1), (W188 S7642 Oak Grove Drive) Date: July 20, 2020 The request has been made by a resident for a waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1). The code is as follows: Municipal Code Section 400-31(B)(1) regulates the lowest floor elevation, in this case a basement, above the highest anticipated seasonal groundwater level. The code language is as follows: Adequate drainage required. No principal building shall be erected, structurally altered, or relocated on land which is not adequately drained at all times nor which is subject to periodic flooding, nor so that the lowest floor level is less than two feet above the highest anticipated seasonal groundwater level. An occupancy permit and zoning permit shall not be issued for any lot where the grading plan approved for that lot at the time of its platting has not been accomplished. For homes adjacent to lakes, the City of Muskego uses the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) to establish the groundwater. The OHWM for Little Muskego Lake is 792.27. The home owners are proposing to put the basement sport court floor at an elevation of 791.00. This elevation is 3.27 feet below the allowable elevation per code. Attached are the following documents from the people asking for the waiver: Waiver request by home owner Giles Geotechnical report In 2019, The City of Muskego’s Municipal Code Section 400-31(B)(1) was challenged by another home owner who wanted to build their house in the groundwater. The matter was taken upon with the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS). DSPS determined there was no violation and closed the case. Attached letter from DSPS There are several municipalities in Wisconsin that have similar rules. For example, Waukesha County has a minimum 1 foot separation between ground water and basement floor surface. The City of Muskego has a lot of low areas with high ground water. Several homes in the City of Muskego have multiple sump pumps to protect against ground water. With the recent storm water rain events and the higher than normal ground water that is occurring throughout Wisconsin, City of Muskego and DPW receive multiple drainage calls after every storm water event. City of Muskego staff, DPW, and building inspectors have discussion this matter quite thoroughly over the last two years and do not recommend this waiver. An example of an entire subdivision dealing with ground water issues is Country Bliss Estates Subdivision in the Town of Mukwonago. The issue has been going on since in 2008. I recommend doing some research on this subdivision. I have included a photo below of a residence who is facing ground water issues in the Country Bliss Estates Subdivision. Page 1 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 12 Country Bliss Estates Subdivision – Town of Mukwonago 2008 Recommendation for Action by the Committee: City of Muskego staff would not recommend any type of waiver with this request to build a residence in the groundwater. Page 2 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 13 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATION AND CREATIVE STUDIO 8655 N. Deerwood Dr., Suite One North | Milwaukee, WI 53209 www.wwa-design.com | 414-351-1200 | info@wwa-design.com July 13th, 2020 Scott Kroeger Public Works and Development Director City of Muskego W182 S8200 Racine Avenue Muskego, WI 53150 On behalf of the homeowners at W188 S7642 Oak Grove Drive, William and Dawn Engelking, Wade Weissmann Architecture has prepared this narrative with the intent to construct an addition on the property with a lower level slab elevation at 791’, approximately 1.27’ below the city’s assumed OHWM of 792.27’. Based on the current code, 400-31B(1) No principal building shall be erected, structurally altered, or relocated on land which is not adequately drained at all times nor which is subject to periodic flooding, nor so that the lowest floor level is less than two feet above the highest anticipated seasonal groundwater level. An occupancy permit and zoning permit shall not be issued for any lot where the grading plan approved for that lot at the time of its platting has not been accomplished. Any variances to this requirement can only be made by the Public Works and Safety Committee. Giles Engineering Associates, Inc, has conducted a geotechnical analysis of the property and provided recommendations for both the site preparation and design for construction. Aligning with the city’s assumed OHWM, the report found the estimated water-table elevation between ±792’ and ±793’. The proposed lower level slab elevation of 791’ is 2’ higher than the report’s recommended minimum below-grade floor elevation of 789’. If approved, Giles Engineering Associates, Inc will be present during excavation to observe and determine whether any further mitigation efforts may be required. The project will employ several drainage system strategies including but not limited to: 4” Perforated Drainpipe installed in a gravel bed at both the inside and outside of footings. Multiple sumps equipped with a generator back-up While the proposed lower level slab exceeds the estimated groundwater table depth by ±2 feet, the report states that soils at this depth consist of lean clay with very low estimated permeabilities indicating that significant groundwater inflow will not be encountered. Given the thorough analyses of the property and planned strategies to reduce the risk of flooding, we believe that provided a waiver, the project will be in keeping with the intent of the code, providing adequate drainage to protect the homeowners, neighboring properties and adjacent waterways. For your additional consideration, please see attached Architectural Drawings C1.00 and A3.01 illustrating the extent of excavation and location of work on site, as well as a letter from the Owner agreeing to provide a waiver releasing the City of Muskego from liability arising from damages due to flooding and an agreement to disclose the existence of a foundation depth in excess of the current municipal guidelines. Thank you for your consideration, Thomas Wynn, Architect Page 3 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 14 Page 4 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 15 Page 5 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 16 Page 6 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 17 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition W188 S7642 Oak Grove Drive Muskego, Wisconsin Prepared for: Bill Engelking Muskego, Wisconsin July 2, 2020 Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 7 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 18 Page 8 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 19 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. TABLE OF CONTENTS GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS PROPOSED RESIDENCE ADDITION W188 S7642 OAK GROVE DRIVE MUSKEGO, WISCONSIN GILES PROJECT NO. 1G-2006004 Section No. Description Page No. 1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES ........................................................................................ 1 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION ............................................................................................ 1 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ................................................................................... 1 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM .......................... 2 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY SERVICES ..................................................... 3 6.0 MATERIAL CONDITIONS .................................................................................... 3 6.1. Surface Materials ....................................................................................... 4 6.2. Fill Materials ............................................................................................... 4 6.3. Native Soil .................................................................................................. 4 7.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS ......................................................................... 4 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................... 5 8.1. Site Development Conditions ..................................................................... 5 8.2. Seismic Design Considerations ................................................................. 6 8.3. Residence Addition Foundation Recommendations .................................. 6 8.3.1. Spread-Footing Foundation Recommendations .............................. 6 8.3.2. Helical-Pier Foundation Underpinning Recommendations .............. 9 8.4. Basement Recommendations .................................................................. 11 8.5. At-Grade (Garage) Floor Slab Recommendations ................................... 14 8.6. Generalized Site Preparation Recommendations .................................... 15 8.7. General Construction Considerations ...................................................... 16 8.8. Recommended Construction Materials Testing Services......................... 17 9.0 BASIS OF REPORT ........................................................................................... 18 APPENDICES Appendix A - Figures (1) and Test Boring Logs (2) Appendix B - Field Procedures Appendix C - Laboratory Testing and Classification Appendix D - General Information and Important Information About Your Geotechnical Report © Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. 2020 Page 9 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 20 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING EXPLORATION AND ANALYSIS PROPOSED RESIDENCE ADDITION W188 S7642 OAK GROVE DRIVE MUSKEGO, WISCONSIN GILES PROJECT NO. 1G-2006004 1.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES This report provides the results of the Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis that Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. (“Giles”) conducted for the proposed project. The Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis included a Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Program, Geotechnical Laboratory Services, and Geotechnical Engineering. The scope of each service area was narrow and limited, as directed by our client, and based on our understanding and assumptions about the proposed project. Service areas are briefly described later. Environmental consulting was outside our scope of services. Geotechnical-related recommendations are provided in this report for design and construction of the foundations, below-grade areas, and at-grade floor for the proposed residence addition. Site preparation recommendations are also given, but are only preliminary, as the means and methods of site preparation will depend on factors that were unknown when this report was prepared. Those factors include, but are not limited to, the weather before and during construction, subsurface conditions that are exposed during construction, and final details of the proposed project. 2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION The subject site is south of the existing residence, located at the address W188 S7642 Oak Grove Drive in Muskego, Wisconsin. A bay of Little Muskego Lake was directly east of the site. A depiction of the site is shown on the Test Boring Location Plan, enclosed as Figure 1 in Appendix A. When the test borings (described later) were performed, the addition area was vacant and grass covered, but a residence recently existed at the site. The site generally sloped down to the east, toward a bay of Little Muskego Lake. Topographic contour lines and spot elevations on the Plat of Survey, prepared by Jahnke & Jahnke Associates, LLC., show that ground elevations at the site generally vary between ±El. 808 and ±El. 801. The Plat of Survey also shows that the first floor of the existing residence is at about El. 810.35, and the basement floor is at El. 800.69. 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The footprint of the proposed addition is shown on the Test Boring Location Plan. It is understood that the proposed addition will consist of a sport court building that will include an at- grade garage and a below-grade level that is planned to extend to a depth of ±22 feet below the existing residence first floor elevation. It is assumed that the addition will be a wood-frame or masonry structure and below-grade walls will be cast-in-place concrete. Bearing walls will assumedly support the residence, along with columns. Maximum foundation loads were not provided, but are assumed to be 4,000 pounds per lineal foot (plf) from bearing walls and Page 10 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 21 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 2 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 10,000 pounds per column. It is assumed that the maximum load on ground-bearing floor slabs will be 100 pounds per square foot (psf). Based on the groundwater and subsurface conditions (discussed below), the below-grade floor of the proposed addition is recommended to be at or above El. 789, referenced to the Plat of Survey. Assuming that the below-grade floor will be at El. 789, it is expected that the addition will have a maximum of 18-foot below-grade walls. It is assumed that the at-grade garage floor of the addition will be at El. 808.35, which matches the existing garage floor elevation of the residence, as shown on the Plat of Survey. It is planned that the first floor elevation of the addition will match the existing first floor elevation of El. 810.35. Based on those floor elevations, relatively minor grade-change is expected in the proposed addition area, except that the below-grade excavation is expected to be a maximum of about 19 feet deep, including excavations for footings. 4.0 GEOTECHNICAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION PROGRAM Geotechnical Test Borings To explore subsurface conditions, four geotechnical test borings were performed in the proposed addition area, using a mechanical drill-rig. The test borings were terminated at ±31 feet below-ground, as planned. Locations of the test borings are shown on the Test Boring Location Plan. The test boring locations were positioned on-site relative to apparent property lines and existing site features, and by estimating right angles. Samples were collected from each test boring, at certain depths, using the Standard Penetration Test (SPT), conducted with the drill rig. A brief description of the SPT is given in Appendix B, along with descriptions of other field procedures. Immediately after sampling, select portions of the SPT samples were placed in containers that were labeled at the site for identification. A Standard Penetration Resistance value (N-value) was determined from each SPT. N-values are reported on the Test Boring Logs (in Appendix A), which are records of the test borings. The boreholes were backfilled upon completion; however, backfill materials will likely settle and/or heave, possibly creating a hazard that can injure people and animals. Borehole areas should, therefore, be carefully and routinely monitored by the property owner or others; Due to the groundwater and subsurface conditions, the proposed residence is recommended to be situated as high as possible. This report is strictly based on Giles’ assumption that the below-grade floor will be at El. 789 and that basement footings will bear at or above El. 788. It is recommended that Giles review the final plans for the proposed residence prior to its construction. Depending on that review, revision of this report might be necessary. Severe groundwater-related problems could occur after construction if the residence is too low. Page 11 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 22 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 3 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. settlement and/or heave of backfill materials should be repaired immediately. Giles will not monitor or repair boreholes, or borehole areas. Ground elevations at the test borings were estimated using the topographic contours lines on the Plat of Survey, dated May 21, 2020, created by Jahnke & Jahnke Associates, LLC. The test boring elevations are noted on the Test Boring Logs, and are considered accurate within about one foot (one contour interval). Groundwater Observation Piezometer To assist evaluation of groundwater depth, a temporary groundwater observation piezometer was installed at Test Boring 1. The observation piezometer was constructed with solid and slotted PVC pipe, and the bottom of the well was set at ±29 feet below-ground. A Giles representative measured the water level within the observation piezometer on June 16, 2020 and June 29, 2020. Results of the groundwater measurements are provided in Section 7.0. The observation piezometer should be abandoned before construction in accordance with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources regulations. Giles can abandon the observation well upon request and authorization, under a separate contract. 5.0 GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY SERVICES Retained soil samples were transported to Giles’ geotechnical laboratory. The samples were classified using the descriptive terms and particle-size criteria shown on the General Notes in Appendix D, and by using the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D 2488-75) as a general guide. The classifications are shown on the Test Boring Logs, along with horizontal lines that show estimated depths of material change. Field-related information pertaining to the test borings is also shown on the Test Boring Logs. For simplicity and abbreviation, terms and symbols are used on the Test Boring Logs; the terms and symbols are defined on the General Notes. Calibrated penetrometer resistance, unconfined compression (without controlled strain), and water content tests were performed on select cohesive soil samples to evaluate their engineering properties. Results of the laboratory tests are shown on the Test Boring Logs. Laboratory procedures are briefly described in Appendix C. Because testing was conducted on SPT samples, which are categorized as disturbed samples, results of the strength-related tests are considered to be approximate. 6.0 MATERIAL CONDITIONS Because material sampling at the test borings was discontinuous, it was necessary for Giles to estimate conditions between sample intervals. Estimated conditions at the test borings are briefly discussed in this section and are described in more detail on the Test Boring Logs. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based only on the estimated conditions. Page 12 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 23 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 4 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 6.1. Surface Materials Topsoil was at the surface of the test borings, and was ±12 inches thick. The topsoil generally consisted of silty clay and included an estimated little amount of sand and organic matter. 6.2. Fill Materials Soil classified as fill was beneath the surface materials at Test Boring 1, and was identified to 5 feet below-ground. The fill material generally consisted of lean clay with variable amounts of sand, gravel, and organic matter. Concrete rubble was also encountered within the fill material. The fill material exhibited relatively low to moderate strength characteristics, based on laboratory testing. The fill material is interpreted to be backfill material associated with demolition of the former residence. 6.3. Native Soil Native soil was beneath the fill materials and topsoil at Test Borings 1 and 2 and was encountered to the ±31-foot termination depth at the test borings. The native soil consisted of lean clay with variable, but typically trace, amounts of sand and gravel to depths of ±22 and ±25 feet below-ground. Beneath the lean clay was silty clay at Test Boring 1 and sandy clay at Test Boring 2 that extended to the termination depths. The silty clay and sandy clay included silt and sand lenses. Based on laboratory testing, lean clay cohesive site soil typically had very stiff to hard comparative consistencies whereas the silty clay and sandy clay typically had a stiff comparative consistency. 7.0 GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS As described above, a groundwater-observation piezometer was installed at Test Boring 1 to evaluate groundwater conditions. A Giles representative monitored the piezometer on June 16, 2020 and June 29, 2020. Results of the observation-well monitoring are provided in the following table. TABLE 1 RESULTS OF OBSERVATION-PIEZOMETER MONITORING Monitoring Date Measured Water Depth1 Measured Water Elevation2 June 16, 2020 ±13.9 feet ±El. 792.9 June 29, 2020 ±14.4 feet ±El. 792.4 1) Groundwater depth is referenced to the ground surface adjacent to the observation piezometer. 2) Elevations are referenced to topographic contour lines shown on the Plat of Survey, prepared by Jahnke & Jahnke Associates, LLC. Based on the observation piezometer readings, and the subsurface conditions at the test borings, it is estimated that, during our field services, the water table was between ±El. 792 and ±El. 793 at the locations of the test borings. In addition to the shallow water table, the site is likely subject to shallower perched-groundwater conditions. Page 13 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 24 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 5 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Groundwater conditions at the site will fluctuate, especially seasonally, with weather events, and with fluctuation of Little Muskego Lake. Additional observation-well monitoring could be performed to further evaluate the groundwater conditions. The longer the groundwater observation well is monitored, the more accurately the seasonal water table depth/elevation can be defined. Giles can continue to monitor the observation well, upon request and authorization. If the observation well is monitored by others, Giles should be provided with the results, which may require revision of this report. 8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1. Site Development Conditions Based on the minimum below-grade floor elevation of El. 789, and the estimated water-table elevation (±El. 792 to ±El. 793), it is expected that the basement excavation (including footing excavations) will extend ±3 to ±4 feet below the estimated groundwater table depth. However, the soils at this depth consist of lean clay with very low estimated permeabilities. Therefore, it is expected that significant groundwater inflow will not be encountered within this material, but will be expected to occur within the deeper more permeable silty clay and sandy clay, where silt and sand lenses were present, at depths of ±22 and ±25 feet below-ground (El. 784.8 and El. 779.3). Therefore, the minimum below-grade floor elevation is recommended to be 4 feet above the highest soil layer with silt and sand layers present, resulting in a minimum below-grade floor elevation of El. 789. Even with the recommended minimum below-grade floor elevation, it is expected that sump pump activity may be near continuous during and/or following periods of increased precipitation. It is recommended that a geotechnical engineer observe the soil conditions within the below- grade area excavation at the time of construction, to evaluate the potential of increased sump pump activity due to perched water conditions. Mitigation may be necessary to reduce the potential for increased sump pump activity. In particular, evaluation of the soil conditions should be performed to determine if sand and/or silt lenses that could be water bearing are present. Dependent on the conditions observed within the basement excavation at the time of construction, alternative plans, including a shallower basement depth, may be needed. Depending on the excavation depths, groundwater-related construction problems might be encountered during construction. Dewatering should be performed with care and in accordance with the recommendations of a geotechnical engineer. Improper dewatering could induce settlement of the neighboring properties, including the neighboring developments. Construction dewatering, along with overexcavation, is expected to be needed for foundation construction. Due to the shallow groundwater, care must be exercised when using vibratory equipment at the site. Misuse of vibratory compaction equipment could cause soil to become unstable, possible resulting in support and settlement problems regarding the proposed building, other site improvements, and possibly nearby developments. Page 14 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 25 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 6 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Due to the maximum excavation depth of 19 feet below-ground, shoring will be necessary, especially considering the proximity to the neighboring residence. Shoring is assumed to consist of steel sheeting and it is recommended that a geotechnical engineer approve and observe shoring construction. Shoring must be designed and constructed such that the nearby structures are protected from settlement or other adverse ground movements. Based on the below-grade floor elevation of El. 789, it is expected that the addition excavation will extend ±11 feet below the current basement floor elevation. Therefore, the south wall that is connected to the below-grade portion of the addition will need to be underpinned. It is anticipated that helical piers will be the most economical for foundation underpinning and recommendations are provided in this report for underpinning a portion of the south wall foundation with helical piers. 8.2. Seismic Design Considerations A soil Site Class C is recommended for seismic design, if needed. By definition, Site Class is based on the average properties of subsurface materials to 100 feet below the ground surface. Since 100-foot test borings were not requested or authorized, it was necessary to estimate Site Class based on the test borings, presumed area geology, and the International Building Code. 8.3. Residence Addition Foundation Recommendations 8.3.1. Spread-Footing Foundation Recommendations A spread-footing foundation is recommended for the proposed addition. All footings must bear on suitable native soil and/or on new engineered fill or lean-concrete backfill (both discussed below) placed on suitable native soil. Assuming the foundations will be properly supported, the foundations are recommended to be designed using a 3,000 psf maximum, net, allowable soil bearing capacity. For geotechnical considerations, strip footings and isolated footings are recommended to be at least 18 and 24 inches wide, respectively, regardless of the calculated foundation-bearing stress. Also, from a geotechnical perspective, foundation/below-grade walls are recommended to be constructed of cast-in-place concrete (rather than concrete masonry units) due to the groundwater conditions at the site. It is recommended and assumed that a structural engineer will specify foundation details, including footing dimensions, reinforcing, etc. The local building code requires a minimum 48-inch foundation-embedment depth for frost protection. It is, therefore, recommended that footings for perimeter walls and other exterior elements of the proposed structure bear at least 48 inches below the adjacent (finished) exterior grade. From a geotechnical perspective, interior footings in below-grade areas could be directly below the floor slab. It is recommended that interior footings (if any) in the attached garage or any exposed below-grade areas bear at least 48 inches below-grade. Also, to satisfy the required embedment depth, footings might need to step down to a lower elevation if below- grade areas are partially or fully exposed. Page 15 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 26 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 7 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Based on the assumed floor elevations discussed in Section 3.0, and that below-grade area excavations will be ±19 feet deep, the assumed bearing grade for basement-area footings is El. 788. However, where the below-grade area is not present and to satisfy the required embedment depth, it is assumed that the foundations will bear at El. 804.35. The following table shows estimated depths and elevations of suitable-bearing native soil at the test borings; subsurface conditions away from the test borings may differ. TABLE 2 ESTIMATED DEPTH/ELEVATION OF SUITABLE-BEARING NATIVE SOIL1 Test Boring Estimated Depth of Suitable- Bearing Native Soil 2 Estimated Elevation of Suitable- Bearing Native Soil 3 1 ±5 feet ±El. 801.8 2 ±1 foot ±El. 803.3 1) For direct foundation support and/or for placement of engineered fill or lean-concrete backfill; based on a 3,000 psf maximum, net, allowable soil bearing capacity. 2) Referenced to the site grades during the Geotechnical Subsurface Exploration Program. 3) Referenced to the topographic contour lines on the Plat of Survey, prepared by Jahnke & Jahnke Associates, LLC. Considering the foundation-bearing elevation given above, and the depths/elevations of suitable-bearing native soil shown in the previous table, suitable-bearing native soil is generally expected to be at and below the assumed foundation-bearing elevation, but some over- excavation is to be expected for shallow foundation construction outside of proposed below- grade areas due to existing fill and the previous residence. Removal of below-grade components of existing structures will also be necessary, possibly requiring significant horizontal and vertical over-excavation, and specialized disposal. Actual depths/elevations of suitable soil are therefore recommended be determined by a geotechnical engineer, based on observation and testing during foundation excavation. Furthermore, to protect the support soil, foundations are recommended to be constructed immediately after foundation-support soil is tested and approved by a geotechnical engineer. Foundation excavations are recommended to be dug with a smooth-edge backhoe bucket to develop a relatively undisturbed bearing grade. A toothed bucket will likely disturb foundation- bearing soil more than a smooth-edge bucket, thereby making soil at the excavation base more susceptible to saturation and instability, especially during adverse weather. It is critical that contractors protect support soil and the construction materials (concrete and reinforcing). Furthermore, engineered fill is recommended to be placed and compacted in benched excavations along foundation walls immediately after the foundation walls are capable of supporting lateral pressures from backfill, compaction, and compaction equipment. Earth- formed footing construction techniques are expected to be feasible within native cohesive soil for shallow excavations; shoring will be necessary for deeper excavations, such as for the below-grade sport court. Page 16 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 27 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 8 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Foundation Support Soil Requirements All footings must bear on suitable native soil and/or on new engineered fill or lean-concrete backfill (both discussed below) placed on suitable native soil. Based on the recommended 3,000 psf maximum, net, allowable soil bearing capacity, the in-situ unconfined compressive strength of native cohesive soil, such as lean clay, within foundation influence zones is recommended to be at least 1.5 tons per square foot (tsf). Granular soil within foundation-influence zones must have an average corrected N-value (determined from SPTs and correlated from other in-situ tests) of at least 10. It is further recommended that the strength characteristics of native soil within all foundation influence zones (determined by a geotechnical engineer during construction) meet or exceed the values, unless Giles specifically approves lower values. Based on the planned floor elevations, and the required 48-inch foundation-embedment depth, it is expected that suitable native soil will be encountered at and below the planned foundation- bearing elevations. However, some over-excavation of unsuitable soil may be needed for foundation construction, considering the moisture and disturbance sensitive soil and the perched groundwater conditions encountered at the test borings. Unsuitable materials beneath shallow foundation areas could be replaced with engineered fill, such as well-graded aggregate that has low water-sensitivity. If engineered fill is used as backfill, lateral over-excavation of the unsuitable materials will also be required. The amount of lateral over-excavation will depend on the vertical over-excavation. For budgeting purposes, the minimum lateral over-excavation could be determined by extending an imaginary line outward and downward at a ratio of 1(horizontal):2(vertical) from the bottom edges of a footing pad, but the actual lateral extents of over-excavation are recommended to be approved by a geotechnical engineer during construction. Because of expected compaction problems associated with shallow groundwater, engineered fill is not recommended to be used to replace unsuitable soil beneath below-grade area foundations. Instead, lean Portland cement concrete (minimum 28-day compressive strength of 500 psi) is recommended to be used to replace unsuitable materials beneath foundation areas, and is generally the preferred backfill material within deeper excavation. Where it is used, footing construction must not begin until the lean-concrete backfill has gained sufficient strength. Also, over-excavations that are filled with lean concrete are recommended to be at least as wide (on all sides) as the footing pad that will be supported by the concrete, and excavation sidewalls are recommended to be plumb and parallel. To help control sloughing and caving, especially due to lower-strength sandy clay, lean-concrete backfill is recommended to be placed immediately after excavation. This trench-and-pour method requires close communication and scheduling between the general contractor, foundation contractor, geotechnical engineer, and concrete supply company. With a trench-and-pour method, a geotechnical engineer must observe excavations as they are made. Full-time observation by a geotechnical engineer is, therefore, recommended. Page 17 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 28 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 9 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Estimated Foundation Settlement The post-construction total and differential settlements of a spread-footing foundation designed and constructed based on this report are estimated to be less than about 1 inch and ½ inch, respectively. The post-construction angular distortion is estimated to be less than about 0.002 inch per inch across a distance of 20 feet or more. Estimated settlements are based on the assumption that foundation support soil will be tested and approved by a geotechnical engineer during construction. Without testing and approval by a geotechnical engineer, the foundations could be improperly supported. 8.3.2. Helical-Pier Foundation Underpinning Recommendations Helical piers may be used for underpinning the existing building. It is recommended that the uppermost helix of each pier bear at least 4 feet into suitable-bearing native soil below the bottom of the below-grade area foundations. With this, it is assumed that the uppermost helix of each pier will bear ±26 feet below-grade along the east half of the south wall. Because of the depth variability of suitable-bearing soil, the actual depth/elevation of each uppermost helix must be determined on a pier-by-pier basis, depending on resistance (torque) measured during pier installation. Piers might need to be advanced much deeper than planned. It is recommended that a geotechnical engineer observe the helical-pier installation procedures to confirm that each pier is extended to a sufficient depth. Estimated maximum allowable compression (downward) capacity for a helical pier configuration consisting of an 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch helix is shown in Table 3 below. The helix diameter increases from bottom to top. The estimated maximum allowable compression capacity in the following table includes a factor of safety of 2.0. If higher or lower compression capacities are needed, contact Giles for alternate helical-pier configurations. Also, it is recommended that Giles re-evaluate the compression capacities once the helical-pier manufacturer is chosen, since helix area varies based on manufacture. It is important to note that the capacity in the following table is based on the conditions at the actual test boring locations; soil conditions likely differ away from the test borings. TABLE 3 ESTIMATED MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COMPRESSION CAPACITY (PER HELICAL PIER) Helix Configuration Estimated Maximum Allowable Compression Capacity Pier with an 8-inch, 10-inch, and 12-inch helix 16,875 pounds • Helix sizes (8-inch, 10-inch, etc.) represent helix diameter. The smallest helix is at the bottom and helix size increases moving upward. • Estimated compression capacities assume that the uppermost helix of each pier will bear at least 4 feet into suitable-bearing granular soil and at least 15 feet below the finished ground surface. The vertical spacing between helices (of an individual pier) is recommended to be at least three (3) times the diameter of the next lowest helix. The center-to-center spacing between adjacent Page 18 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 29 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 10 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. helical piers is recommended to be at least three (3) times the diameter of the largest helix of that pier or the adjacent pier. If possible, more space should be between the piers. If piers will be closer than recommended, the maximum allowable compression capacity of those piers might need to be reduced and/or alternate helix configurations may be necessary. A structural engineer should specify the locations of helical piers and the required helix configuration for each pier based on load requirements and structural details of the proposed structure. It was not within Giles’ scope to select or specify the diameter or wall thickness of the helical- pier shafts. A structural engineer, manufacturer of the helical piers, or helical-pier installation contractor should specify the minimum diameter and wall thickness of each helical-pier shaft to prevent excessive lateral deflection and buckling. Couplings for the helical-pier shafts should also be specified to control lateral deflection and buckling. Alternative methods of increasing resistance to buckling, such as annular grouting in the lower-strength soil, may be used. Helix style should be selected based on the expected conditions. Giles did not evaluate the corrosion potential of site soil. Appropriate precautions should be taken to protect the helical piers against corrosion. Care must be taken not to damage helical- piers during transportation, handling, and/or installation. Damage such as scratches could accelerate corrosion. The compression capacity of each pier must be verified in the field based upon pier length, overburden, and installation torque (at final depth). Torque must be monitored during pier installation to confirm that the piers have sufficient compression capacity. The measured capacity (determined from torque testing) is recommended to be at least 200 percent of the required (allowable) compression capacity. It is recommended that a geotechnical engineer observe the installation procedures and verify that the in-place compression capacity of each pier at least meets the specified measured capacity, or twice the required allowable capacity. The length of each helical pier and torque measured during installation should be recorded for each helical pier. If it is determined that a pier does not have sufficient compression capacity, the pier should be advanced deeper until the necessary capacity is reached, or the pier could be removed and a pier with additional and/or larger helices installed in its place. It is recommended that Giles provide supplemental recommendations during construction if compression capacities are not achieved. It is recommended that Giles review the final foundation plans prior to construction to confirm that the recommendations provided in this report have been properly interpreted and to evaluate the overall foundation system that will be used to support of the proposed residence. Page 19 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 30 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 11 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. 8.4. Basement Recommendations Geotechnical-related recommendations regarding the basement are provided below. The recommendations assume that the basement floor will be at El. 789, referenced to the topographic contour lines on the Plat of Survey. The recommendations also assume that the below-grade area footings will bear at ±El. 788. Giles must be notified if the basement floor or basement footings will be lower than assumed; this report might need to be revised. Also, it is expected that the below-grade area will be ±3 to ±4 feet below the groundwater table; however it is expected that free water will not be encountered within the lean clay, unless silt or sand lenses are present. Consequently, the below-grade area should be designed with extra waterproofing measures in order to control humidity. Waterproofing measures such as water stops at control joints, construction joints, utilites, and other junctures where water could enter the structure, waterproofing material outside the below-grade walls and below the floor slab, and/or alternative waterproofing materials such as concrete admixtures could be added in order to control humidity. Waterproofing materials are recommended to be specified by the architect or structural engineer and installed by a qualified, experienced contractor in strict accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations. Due to the groundwater table and shallow perched groundwater, water flow within the foundation drainage system (discussed below) may be frequent and possibly continuous at times, especially in areas with silt and sand lenses within the clay. Based on the conditions encountered in the test borings, soils with water bearing silt and sand lenses are not anticipated above the minimum basement elevation recommended. However, it must be understood that there is a risk that sump pumps might operate continuously during and/or following periods of increased precipitation, which could be a nuisance to the homeowners. Basement Floor Slab From a geotechnical perspective, and assuming a maximum 100 psf floor load, the basement floor slab is recommended to be at least 4 inches thick; that thickness assumes that the 28-day compressive strength of concrete will be at least 3,500 pounds per square inch (psi). It is recommended and assumed that a structural engineer or architect will specify the actual thickness and reinforcing of the basement floor slab. For moisture control only, a minimum 20-mil vapor retarder is recommended to be directly below the floor slab throughout the entire basement area. The vapor retarder should completely underlie the entire basement-floor area and extend to all foundation walls. Abutting vapor retarders are recommended to be properly overlapped, sealed and taped. The vapor retarder is recommended to be in accordance with ASTM E 1745: Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs, and/or other Page 20 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 31 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 12 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. relevant documents. If the base course has sharp, angular aggregate, protecting the retarder with geotextile (or other means) is recommended. A minimum 10-inch-thick base course is recommended to be directly below the minimum 10-mil vapor retarder to serve as a capillary break and for sub-slab drainage. Because the base course will be a component of the recommended drainage system (discussed below), the base-course material is recommended to consist of free-draining aggregate with less than 3% passing the No. 200 sieve. Base-course materials are recommended to be properly compacted. A non- woven geotextile is recommended to completely underlie the base course aggregate. The non- woven geotextile is recommended to consist of material in accordance with WisDOT Section 645 Geotextile, Type DF (Drainage Filtration), Schedule A, or as approved by the geotechnical engineer. The geotextile is also recommended to surround the drainage aggregate along basement walls, as discussed in the Drainage Backfill subsection below. The post-construction total and differential settlements of an isolated floor slab constructed in accordance with this report are estimated to be less than about ½ inch and ⅜ inch, respectively, over a distance of about 20 feet. Estimated settlements assume that support-soil will be thoroughly tested and approved by a geotechnical engineer. Drainage System Recommendations The basement is recommended to be equipped with a permanent drainage system. Continuous drainpipes are recommended to be along the interior and exterior sides of the perimeter footings, thereby creating interior and exterior drainage loops around the basement. Drainpipes could consist of conduits specifically manufactured for foundation drainage applications, such as Form-A-Drain® conduits. Manufactured foundation drains are recommended to be installed per the manufacturer’s recommendations. Circular drainpipes could also be used and are recommended to be minimum 4-inch-diameter perforated pipes suitable for foundation drainage applications. Circular drains are recommended to be directly adjacent to the footing pads, not atop footing flanges. Interior drainpipes are to be properly situated within the base-course layer below the basement floor slab. It is recommended that a minimum 12-inch-thick layer of crushed stone surround exterior drainpipes, except that crushed stone must not extend below the foundation-bearing grade and into the foundation-influence zone. Along with the drainpipes, bleeder pipes are recommended to be cast in the perimeter strip footings to serve as water conduits between interior and exterior drainpipes. Bleeder pipes are recommended to be 3 inches in diameter and about 6 to 8 feet on-center. The drainage system is recommended to discharge to a sump or sumps. Due to the potential for increased sump pump activity during periods of increased precipitation, multiple sumps are recommended. Locations of sump basins should be determined based on architectural and structural details of the building. Also, it is recommended that each basin have a sealed-and- bolted, airtight lid to prevent the in-flow of subsurface gases, such as radon. Each sump basin must be equipped with a sump pump that has sufficient capacity. Sump pumps are Page 21 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 32 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 13 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. recommended to be equipped with a generator back-up to prevent or reduce water problems in the event of a power failure. Piping for the sump pumps should discharge a sufficient distance away from the proposed residence to a suitable location where the possibility of ponded water will not be a nuisance or hazard, especially during cold weather when ponded water could freeze. Frequent sump-pump operation could be a nuisance to the homeowners. Bentonite Collars Bentonite collars are recommended to be installed at sump pits and at all below-grade utility connections to the existing building, such as the sewer and water laterals. The purpose of the bentonite collars is to reduce the potential for groundwater flow through utility backfill and into the basement subdrainage system. Drainage Backfill Free-draining aggregate is recommended to be along the exterior side of the below-grade walls to serve as drainage media for the recommended drainage system. The free draining aggregate must have a maximum percentage of material finer than the No. 200 sieve (“fines”) content of less than 3 percent by weight. A non-woven geotextile is recommended to completely surround the drainage backfill to provide separation between the drainage backfill and the unexcavated soils. The non-woven geotextile is recommended to consist of material in accordance with WisDOT Section 645 Geotextile, Type DF (Drainage Filtration), Schedule A, or as approved by the geotechnical engineer. The aggregate layer is recommended to be at least 2 feet wide, measured from the outside face of the below-grade walls. Also, the aggregate layer is recommended to be continuous along the length and height of the walls, except that pavement or a ±6-inch-thick layer of relatively impervious material is recommended to be above the drainage aggregate to reduce surface-water intrusion. Furthermore, the aggregate layer must extend to the base of the perimeter strip-footing pads, thereby creating a continuous drainage path to the perimeter drainage conduits. However, drainage aggregate must not extend below the foundation-bearing grade and into the foundation-influence zone. Drainage aggregate that is placed adjacent to below-grade walls is recommended to be compacted in relatively thin lifts, especially where drainage aggregate will support pavement or sidewalks. Use of manual compaction equipment must be in accordance with current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards, and other applicable requirements. Manual compaction equipment should not be used within spaces that do not meet OSHA requirements. Drainage aggregate should not be excessively compacted. Where necessary, excavations for below- grade walls must be properly shored, sloped, or restrained. Also, below-grade walls are recommended to be adequately braced before placing backfill to prevent the walls from moving or possibly even overturning during backfilling. Bracing must remain in-place until the top and bottom of the below-grade walls are structurally restrained. Page 22 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 33 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 14 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Lateral Pressure Design Parameters Below-grade walls must be designed to resist lateral pressures from drainage backfill, adjacent soil, and any surface and subsurface surcharges. An equivalent "at-rest" fluid pressure of 65 pounds per square foot per foot of depth (psf/ft) is recommended for design of below-grade walls. The recommended “at-rest” value is based on Giles’ assumption that drainage backfill will continuously abut the below-grade walls, and that the recommended drainage system will be installed and will remain functional. If drainage backfill and/or the drainage system are not installed, lateral pressures will likely exceed the recommended "at-rest" fluid pressure, possibly exceeding the lateral capacity of the walls. Clayey soil should not be near the below-grade walls due to potentially excessive pressures and insufficient drainage. Lateral pressures caused by surface and subsurface surcharge loads must be added to the "at- rest" fluid pressure. Giles could provide supplemental recommendations regarding surface and subsurface surcharge loads on a case-by-case basis, but would require specific structural information. Below-grade walls that are not designed to resist actual pressures could move laterally and possibly fail. It is recommended and assumed that a structural engineer will design the below-grade walls. 8.5. At -Grade (Garage) Floor Slab Recommendations With proper site preparation, existing non-organic soil (including existing fill) is expected to be suitable to support a ground-bearing concrete slab for the attached garage; new engineered fill that is placed on suitable non-organic existing soil is also expected to be suitable. However, subgrade improvement will likely be necessary to develop proper slab support considering existing fill and the previous residence. Consequently, all at-grade floor areas are recommended to be thoroughly evaluated (and approved) by a geotechnical engineer immediately before fill placement and before floor construction. Without a thorough evaluation of floor slab support materials, at-grade floor slabs could be improperly supported, which could lead to excessive settlement. Proper preparation of floor slab areas is critical. From a geotechnical perspective, and assuming a maximum 100 psf floor load, at-grade floor slabs in garage areas are recommended to be at least 5 inches thick; that thickness assumes that the 28-day compressive strength of concrete will be at least 3,500 psi. It is recommended and assumed that a structural engineer or architect will specify the actual thickness and reinforcing of the at-grade floor slabs. A minimum 4-inch-thick base course is recommended to be below the at-grade floor slabs to serve as a capillary break and for support considerations. It is recommended that the base course consist of free-draining aggregate that has been tested and approved by a geotechnical engineer. Depending on aggregate gradation, and subgrade conditions, geotextile might need to be below the base course to serve as a separator. The need for a geotextile should be determined during construction, with the assistance of a geotechnical engineer. Page 23 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 34 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 15 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Due to the frost-susceptible site soil and shallow perched groundwater, areas of the at-grade floor slabs (such as near exterior doors) will be susceptible to freeze-thaw related movement. Installation of insulation (or other protective measures against freeze-thaw movement) should be considered for these areas. Pavement and ground grades are recommended to be sloped away from the building and sidewalks to reduce water infiltration and potential freeze-thaw problems. Estimated Floor Slab Settlement The post-construction total and differential settlements of isolated floor slabs constructed in accordance with this report are estimated to be less than about ½ inch and ⅜ inch, respectively, over a distance of about 20 feet. Estimated settlements assume that support-soil will be thoroughly tested and approved by a geotechnical engineer. 8.6. Generalized Site Preparation Recommendations This section deals with preparation of the proposed addition area, including preparation of floor slab and engineered fill areas. The means and methods of building-area preparation will greatly depend on the weather conditions before and during construction, the subsurface conditions that are exposed during earthwork operations, and the final details of the proposed development. Therefore, only generalized site preparation recommendations are given. In addition to being general, the following recommendations are abbreviated; the Guide Specifications in Appendix D gives further recommendations. The Guide Specifications should be read along with this section. Also, the Guide Specifications are recommended to be used as an aid to develop the project specifications. Stripping and Removal Surface vegetation, trees and bushes (including root-balls), topsoil with adverse organic content, and otherwise unsuitable bearing materials are recommended to be removed from the proposed addition area. Clearing, grubbing, and stripping should extend at least several feet beyond the addition footprint, where feasible. Evaluation and Fill Placement After the recommended stripping and removal, and once the addition area is cut (lowered) as needed, the subgrade is recommended to be evaluated by a geotechnical engineer. Subgrade evaluation could consist of proof-rolling and/or in-situ testing. Depending on the results of the evaluation, subgrade soil might need to be improved, especially considering the existing fill and perched groundwater. Specific recommendations regarding subgrade improvement should be provided by a geotechnical engineer based on their observations during construction. Page 24 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 35 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 16 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. After a geotechnical engineer confirms that the subgrade is stable, the addition area is recommended to be raised, where necessary, to the planned finished grade with fill material that has been approved by the geotechnical engineer. Fill material is recommended to be placed in uniform layers (lifts) that are a maximum of about 6 to 8 inches thick. Each layer of engineered fill is recommended to be compacted to at least 95 percent of the fill material’s maximum dry density determined from the Standard Proctor compaction test (ASTM D698). Also, the water content of fill material is recommended to be uniform and within a narrow range of the optimum moisture content, also determined by the Standard Proctor compaction test. It is recommended that a geotechnical engineer monitor (on a full-time basis) the placement and compaction of fill material. It is also recommended that the geotechnical engineer determine when the fill materials are sufficiently compacted. Engineered fill that does not meet the density and water content requirements is recommended to be replaced wit h new fill, or scarified to a sufficient depth (likely 6 to 12 inches, or more), moisture-conditioned, and compacted to the required density. A subsequent lift of fill should only be placed after a geotechnical engineer confirms that the previous lift was properly placed and compacted. Subgrade soil will likely need to be improved immediately before construction since equipment traffic and adverse weather may damage the subgrade and reduce soil stability. Due to shallow groundwater, vibratory compaction equipment should be used with care. Use of vibratory compaction equipment near groundwater, even perched groundwater, will likely cause soil to become unstable, possibly resulting in support and settlement problems. Static (non- vibratory) compaction equipment should be used near groundwater. Use of Site Soil as Engineered Fill Site soil that does not contain adverse organic content or other deleterious materials, as noted in the Guide Specifications, could be used as engineered fill. Site soil that is used as engineered fill might need to be moisture conditioned (uniformly moistened or dried). If construction is during adverse weather (discussed in the following section), drying site soil will likely not be feasible. In that case, aggregate fill (or other fill material with a low water-sensitivity) will likely need to be imported to the site. Additional recommendations regarding fill selection, placement, and compaction are given in the Guide Specifications. 8.7. General Construction Considerations Adverse Weather Site soil is sensitive to moisture and might become unstable when exposed to adverse weather, such as rain, snow, and freezing temperatures. Therefore, it might be necessary to remove or stabilize the upper 6 to 12 inches (or more) of soil due to adverse weather, which commonly occurs during late fall, winter, and early spring. At least some over-excavation and/or stabilization of unstable soil should be expected if construction is during or after adverse Page 25 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 36 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 17 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. weather. Because site preparation is weather dependent, bids for site preparation, and other earthwork activities, should consider the time of year that construction will be conducted. Dewatering Construction dewatering and groundwater control might be necessary. Filtered sump pumps, drawing water from sump pits excavated in the bottom of construction trenches, are expected to be adequate to remove water that collects in shallow excavations. Multiple sump pumps might be necessary. Excavated sump pits should be fully lined with geotextile and filled with free- draining aggregate, such as crushed stone that meets the gradation requirements of ASTM No. 57 aggregate. Specialized dewatering might be necessary to dewater excavations that extend below the water table. It is recommended that a geotechnical engineer monitor and approve dewatering. Improper dewatering could cause support-related problems at the site and at neighboring properties. Excavation Stability Excavations are recommended to be made in accordance with current OSHA excavation and trench safety standards, and other applicable requirements. Sides of excavations must be sloped, benched, and/or braced to develop and maintain a safe work environment. It is expected that shoring will be needed to protect nearby structures during excavation for the basement. Shoring must be designed and constructed such that the nearby structures are protected from settlement or other adverse ground movements. Temporary shoring must also be designed according to applicable regulatory requirements. Contractors are responsible for excavation safety. Existing Utilities All existing utilities should be identified and located, and any planned to be reused should be relocated outside the proposed building area. Utilities that are not reused should be capped-off and removed in accordance with local codes and ordinances. Excavations for the removal of utilities are recommended to be backfilled with engineered fill. Earthwork operations must be done carefully so that existing utilities are not damaged or disturbed. Utility elevations, locations, and sizes should be checked relative to the planned construction. 8.8. Recommended Construction Materials Testing Services This report was prepared assuming that a geotechnical engineer will perform Construction Materials Testing (“CMT”) services during construction of the proposed development. It might be necessary for Giles to provide supplemental geotechnical recommendations based on the results of CMT services and specific details of the project not known at this time. Page 26 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 37 Geotechnical Engineering Exploration and Analysis Proposed Residence Addition Muskego, Wisconsin Giles Project No. 1G-2006004 Page 18 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Due to groundwater considerations, a geotechnical engineer must observe the excavation at the time of construction to evaluate excavation sidewalls and bottoms for more permeable soil lenses and layers, which may require mitigation in design or construction. Without this evaluation, the risk of future continuous sump pump activity will be increased. 9.0 BASIS OF REPORT This report is strictly based on the project description given earlier in this report. Giles must be notified if any parts of the project description or our assumptions about the proposed project are not accurate so that this report can be amended, if needed. This report is based on the assumption that the building will be designed and constructed according to the codes that govern construction at the site. The conclusions and recommendations in this report are based on estimated subsurface conditions as shown on the Test Boring Logs. Giles must be notified if the subsurface conditions that are encountered during construction of the proposed development differ from those shown on the Test Boring Logs because this report will likely need to be revised. General comments and limitations of this report are given in the appendix. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practices in the field of geotechnical engineering. No other warranty is either expressed or implied. © Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. 2020 1G-2006004/20Geo02/cmf Page 27 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 38 APPENDIX A FIGURES AND TEST BORING LOGS The Test Boring Location Plan contained herein was prepared based upon information supplied by Giles’ client, or others, along with Giles’ field measurements and observations. The diagram is presented for conceptual purposes only and is intended to assist the reader in report interpretation. The Test Boring Logs and related information enclosed herein depict the subsurface (soil and water) conditions encountered at the specific boring locations on the date that the exploration was performed. Subsurface conditions may differ between boring locations and within areas of the site that were not explored with test borings. The subsurface conditions may also change at the boring locations over the passage of time. Page 28 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 39 PROPOSED ADDITION FORMER RESIDENCE DATE CAD No. 07-02-20 1G-2006004 TEST BORING LOCATION PLAN PROJECT NO.: MUSKEGO, WISCONSIN DESIGNED CMF PROPOSED RESIDENCE ADDITION FIGURE 1 DRAWN SCALE approx. 1"=20' REVISED 1g2006004-blp -- W188 S7642 OAK GROVE DRIVE 0 10'20' APPROXIMATE SCALE NOTES: 1.) TEST BORING LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. 2.) BASE MAP DEVELOPED FROM THE "PLAT OF SURVEY", ASSOCIATES, LLC. DATED 5-21-2020, PREPARED BY JAHNKE & JAHNKE ILES NGINEERING SSOCIATES, INC. WAUKESHA, WI 53186 (262)544-0118 N8 W22350 JOHNSON DRIVE, SUITE A1 www.gilesengr.com 3.) FORMER BUILDING IS APPROXIMATE BASED ON AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY. LEGEND: GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING GEOTECHNICAL TEST BORING / GROUNDWATER OBSERVATION PIEZOMETER Page 29 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 40 ±12" Topsoil: Black Silty Clay, little Sand and Organic Matter-Moist Fill: Brown, Dark Brown and Black lean Clay, little Sand and Gravel, trace Organic Matter-Moist (Includes Concrete rubble) Gray Brown and Yellow Brown mottled lean Clay, trace to little Sand and Gravel-Damp Gray lean Clay, trace Sand and Gravel-Moist Gray Silty Clay, some Sand-Wet (Includes Silt and Sand lenses and laminations) Boring Terminated at about 31 feet (EL. 775.8') 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 7-SS 8-SS 9-SS 10-SS 11-SS 9 6 16 30 27 28 18 16 18 12 13 2.3 7.4 6.2 8.0 8.8 4.3 3.0 3.5 1.4 1.2 4.0 1.8 4.5+ 4.5+ 4.5+ 4.5+ 2.8 3.0 2.8 1.8 1.5 23 20 14 15 16 14 17 17 17 21 20 Water Observation Data GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Remarks: TEST BORING LOG1 806.8 feet 06/11/20 De p t h ( f t ) 5 10 15 20 25 30 El e v a t i o n 805 800 795 790 785 780 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Sa m p l e No . & T y p e PROJECT NO: 1G-2006004 ENGELKING RESIDENCE ADDITION Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boringis shown on the Boring Location Plan. BORING NO. & LOCATION: Water Level At End of Drilling: Water Level After Drilling: FIELD REP: NOTES CHARLES RENS N W188 S7642 OAK GROVE DRIVE MUSKEGO, WISCONSIN Qu (tsf) Qp (tsf) Qs (tsf) W (%)PID SURFACE ELEVATION: COMPLETION DATE: Water Encountered During Drilling: 24.5 ft. Cave Depth At End of Drilling: 5 ft. Cave Depth After Drilling:GI L E S L O G R E P O R T 1 G 2 0 0 6 0 0 4 . G P J G I L E S . G D T 7 / 2 / 2 0 Page 30 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 41 Topsoil: Black Silty Clay, little Sand and Organic Matter-Moist Brown lean Clay, trace to little Sand and Gravel-Moist to Damp Gray Brown and Yellow Brown mottled lean Clay, trace to little Sand and Gravel-Damp Gray Brown lean Clay, trace Sand and Gravel-Damp to Moist Gray lean Clay, trace Sand and Gravel-Moist Gray Sandy Clay, little Gravel-Moist (Includes Silt and Sand lenses) Boring Terminated at about 31 feet (EL. 773.3') 1-SS 2-SS 3-SS 4-SS 5-SS 6-SS 7-SS 8-SS 9-SS 10-SS 11-SS 8 9 12 27 31 26 23 14 16 13 14 2.1 3.0 2.2 3.7 7.4 7.2 8.0 2.2 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.2 3.2 4.5 4.5+ 4.5+ 4.5+ 2.0 2.5 3.0 1.0 13 27 19 16 16 17 18 18 16 22 17 Water Observation Data GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Remarks: TEST BORING LOG2 804.3 feet 06/11/20 De p t h ( f t ) 5 10 15 20 25 30 El e v a t i o n 800 795 790 785 780 775 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Sa m p l e No . & T y p e PROJECT NO: 1G-2006004 ENGELKING RESIDENCE ADDITION Changes in strata indicated by the lines are approximate boundary between soil types. The actual transition may be gradual and may vary considerably between test borings. Location of test boringis shown on the Boring Location Plan. BORING NO. & LOCATION: Water Level At End of Drilling: Water Level After Drilling: FIELD REP: NOTES CHARLES RENS N W188 S7642 OAK GROVE DRIVE MUSKEGO, WISCONSIN Qu (tsf) Qp (tsf) Qs (tsf) W (%)PID SURFACE ELEVATION: COMPLETION DATE: Water Encountered During Drilling: 30 ft. Cave Depth At End of Drilling: 7 ft. Cave Depth After Drilling:GI L E S L O G R E P O R T 1 G 2 0 0 6 0 0 4 . G P J G I L E S . G D T 7 / 2 / 2 0 Page 31 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 42 APPENDIX B FIELD PROCEDURES The field operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) designation D 420 entitled “Standard Guide for Sampling Rock and Rock” and/or other relevant specifications. Soil samples were preserved and transported to Giles’ laboratory in general accordance with the procedures recommended by ASTM designation D 4220 entitled “Standard Practice for Preserving and Transporting Soil Samples.” Brief descriptions of the sampling, testing and field procedures commonly performed by Giles are provided herein. Page 32 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 43 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL FIELD PROCEDURES Test Boring Elevations The ground surface elevations reported on the Test Boring Logs are referenced to the assumed benchmark shown on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). Unless otherwise noted, the elevations were determined with a conventional hand-level and are accurate to within about 1 foot. Test Boring Locations The test borings were located on-site based on the existing site features and/or apparent property lines. Dimensions illustrating the approximate boring locations are reported on the Boring Location Plan (Figure 1). Water Level Measurement The water levels reported on the Test Boring Logs represent the depth of “free” water encountered during drilling and/or after the drilling tools were removed from the borehole. Water levels measured within a granular (sand and gravel) soil profile are typically indicative of the water table elevation. It is usually not possible to accurately identify the water table elevation with cohesive (clayey) soils, since the rate of seepage is slow. The water table elevation within cohesive soils must therefore be determined over a period of time with groundwater observation wells. It must be recognized that the water table may fluctuate seasonally and during periods of heavy precipitation. Depending on the subsurface conditions, water may also become perched above the water table, especially during wet periods. Borehole Backfilling Procedures Each borehole was backfilled upon completion of the field operations. If potential contamination was encountered, and/or if required by state or local regulations, boreholes were backfilled with an “impervious” material (such as bentonite slurry). Borings that penetrated pavements, sidewalks, etc. were “capped” with Portland Cement concrete, asphaltic concrete, or a similar surface material. It must, however, be recognized that the backfill material may settle, and the surface cap may subside, over a period of time. Further backfilling and/or re-surfacing by Giles’ client or the property owner may be required. Page 33 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 44 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. FIELD SAMPLING AND TESTING PROCEDURES Auger Sampling (AU) Soil samples are removed from the auger flights as an auger is withdrawn above the ground surface. Such samples are used to determine general soil types and identify approximate soil stratifications. Auger samples are highly disturbed and are therefore not typically used for geotechnical strength testing. Split-Barrel Sampling (SS) – (ASTM D-1586) A split-barrel sampler with a 2-inch outside diameter is driven into the subsoil with a 140- pound hammer free-falling a vertical distance of 30 inches. The summation of hammer- blows required to drive the sampler the final 12-inches of an 18-inch sample interval is defined as the “Standard Penetration Resistance” or N-value is an index of the relative density of granular soils and the comparative consistency of cohesive soils. A soil sample is collected from each SPT interval. Shelby Tube Sampling (ST) – (ASTM D-1587) A relatively undisturbed soil sample is collected by hydraulically advancing a thin-walled Shelby Tube sampler into a soil mass. Shelby Tubes have a sharp cutting edge and are commonly 2 to 5 inches in diameter. Bulk Sample (BS) A relatively large volume of soils is collected with a shovel or other manually-operated tool. The sample is typically transported to Giles’ materials laboratory in a sealed bag or bucket. Dynamic Cone Penetration Test (DC) – (ASTM STP 399) This test is conducted by driving a 1.5-inch-diameter cone into the subsoil using a 15- pound steel ring (hammer), free-falling a vertical distance of 20 inches. The number of hammer-blows required to drive the cone 1¾ inches is an indication of the soil strength and density, and is defined as “N”. The Dynamic Cone Penetration test is commonly conducted in hand auger borings, test pits and within excavated trenches. - Continued - Page 34 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 45 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Ring-Lined Barrel Sampling – (ASTM D 3550) In this procedure, a ring-lined barrel sampler is used to collect soil samples for classification and laboratory testing. This method provides samples that fit directly into laboratory test instruments without additional handling/disturbance. Sampling and Testing Procedures The field testing and sampling operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and/or other relevant specifications. Results of the field testing (i.e. N-values) are reported on the Test Boring Logs. Explanations of the terms and symbols shown on the logs are provided on the appendix enclosure entitled “General Notes”. Page 35 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 46 APPENDIX C LABORATORY TESTING AND CLASSIFICATION The laboratory testing was conducted under the supervision of a geotechnical engineer in accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and/or other relevant specifications. Brief descriptions of laboratory tests commonly performed by Giles are provided herein. Page 36 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 47 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. LABORATORY TESTING AND CLASSIFICATION Photoionization Detector (PID) In this procedure, soil samples are “scanned” in Giles’ analytical laboratory using a Photoionization Detector (PID). The instrument is equipped with an 11.7 eV lamp calibrated to a Benzene Standard and is capable of detecting a minute concentration of certain Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) vapors, such as those commonly associated with petroleum products and some solvents. Results of the PID analysis are expressed in HNu (manufacturer’s) units rather than actual concentration. Moisture Content (w) (ASTM D 2216) Moisture content is defined as the ratio of the weight of water contained within a soil sample to the weight of the dry solids within the sample. Moisture content is expressed as a percentage. Unconfined Compressive Strength (qu) (ASTM D 2166) An axial load is applied at a uniform rate to a cylindrical soil sample. The unconfined compressive strength is the maximum stress obtained or the stress when 15% axial strain is reached, whichever occurs first. Calibrated Penetrometer Resistance (qp) The small, cylindrical tip of a hand-held penetrometer is pressed into a soil sample to a prescribed depth to measure the soils capacity to resist penetration. This test is used to evaluate unconfined compressive strength. Vane-Shear Strength (qs) The blades of a vane are inserted into the flat surface of a soil sample and the vane is rotated until failure occurs. The maximum shear resistance measured immediately prior to failure is taken as the vane-shear strength. Loss-on-Ignition (ASTM D 2974; Method C) The Loss-on-Ignition (L.O.I.) test is used to determine the organic content of a soil sample. The procedure is conducted by heating a dry soil sample to 440°C in order to burn-off or “ash” organic matter present within the sample. The L.O.I. value is the ratio of the weight loss due to ignition compared to the initial weight of the dry sample. L.O.I. is expressed as a percentage. Page 37 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 48 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Particle Size Distribution (ASTB D 421, D 422, and D 1140) This test is performed to determine the distribution of specific particle sizes (diameters) within a soil sample. The distribution of coarse-grained soil particles (sand and gravel) is determined from a “sieve analysis,” which is conducted by passing the sample through a series of nested sieves. The distribution of fine-grained soil particles (silt and clay) is determined from a “hydrometer analysis” which is based on the sedimentation of particles suspended in water. Consolidation Test (ASTM D 2435) In this procedure, a series of cumulative vertical loads are applied to a small, laterally confined soil sample. During each load increment, vertical compression (consolidation) of the sample is measured over a period of time. Results of this test are used to estimate settlement and time rate of settlement. Classification of Samples Each soil sample was visually-manually classified, based on texture and plasticity, in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2488-75). The classifications are reported on the Test Boring Logs. Laboratory Testing The laboratory testing operations were conducted in general accordance with the procedures recommended by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and/or other relevant specifications. Results of the laboratory tests are provided on the Test Boring Logs or other appendix enclosures. Explanation of the terms and symbols used on the logs is provided on the appendix enclosure entitled “General Notes.” Page 38 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 49 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. California Bearing Ratio (CBR) Test ASTM D-1833 The CBR test is used for evaluation of a soil subgrade for pavement design. The test consists of measuring the force required for a 3-square-inch cylindrical piston to penetrate 0.1 or 0.2 inch into a compacted soil sample. The result is expressed as a percent of force required to penetrate a standard compacted crushed stone. Unless a CBR test has been specifically requested by the client, the CBR is estimated from published charts, based on soil classification and strength characteristics. A typical correlation chart is below. Page 39 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 50 APPENDIX D GENERAL INFORMATION AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL REPORT Page 40 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 51 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL COMMENTS The soil samples obtained during the subsurface exploration will be retained for a period of thirty days. If no instructions are received, they will be disposed of at that time. This report has been prepared exclusively for the client in order to aid in the evaluation of this property and to assist the architects and engineers in the design and preparation of the project plans and specifications. Copies of this report may be provided to contractor(s), with contract documents, to disclose information relative to this project. The report, however, has not been prepared to serve as the plans and specifications for actual construction without the appropriate interpretation by the project architect, structural engineer, and/or civil engineer. Reproduction and distribution of this report must be authorized by the client and Giles. This report has been based on assumed conditions/characteristics of the proposed development where specific information was not available. It is recommended that the architect, civil engineer and structural engineer along with any other design professionals involved in this project carefully review these assumptions to ensure they are consistent with the actual planned development. When discrepancies exist, they should be brought to our attention to ensure they do not affect the conclusions and recommendations provided herein. The project plans and specifications may also be submitted to Giles for review to ensure that the geotechnical related conclusions and recommendations provided herein have been correctly interpreted. The analysis of this site was based on a subsoil profile interpolated from a limited subsurface exploration. If the actual conditions encountered during construction vary from those indicated by the borings, Giles must be contacted immediately to determine if the conditions alter the recommendations contained herein. The conclusions and recommendations presented in this report have been promulgated in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering practices in the field of geotechnical engineering. No other warranty is either expressed or implied. Page 41 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 52 GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS FOR SUBGRADE AND GRADE PREPARATION FOR FILL, FOUNDATION, FLOOR SLAB AND PAVEMENT SUPPORT; AND SELECTION, PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION OF FILL SOILS USING STANDARD PROCTOR PROCEDURES 1. Construction monitoring and testing of subgrades and grades for fill, foundation, floor slab and pavement; and fill selection, placement and compaction shall be performed by an experienced soils engineer and/or his representatives. 2. All compaction fill, subgrades and grades shall be (a) underlain by suitable bearing material; (b) free of all organic, frozen, or other deleterious material, and (c) observed, tested and approved by qualified engineering personnel representing an experienced soils engineer. Preparation of subgrades after stripping vegetation, organic or other unsuitable materials shall consist of (a) proof-rolling to detect soil, wet yielding soils or other unstable materials that must be undercut, (b) scarifying top 6 to 8 inches, (c) moisture conditioning the soils as required, and (d) recompaction to same minimum in-situ density required for similar materials indicated under Item 5. Note: compaction requirements for pavement subgrade are higher than other areas. Weather and construction equipment may damage compacted fill surface and reworking and retesting may be necessary to assure proper performance. 3. In overexcavation and fill areas, the compacted fill must extend (a) a minimum 1 foot lateral distance beyond the exterior edge of the foundation at bearing grade or pavement subgrade and down to compacted fill subgrade on a maximum 0.5(H):1(V) slope, (b) 1 foot above footing grade outside the building, and (c) to floor subgrade inside the building. Fill shall be placed and compacted on a 5(H):1(V) slope or must be stepped or benched as required to flatten if not specifically approved by qualified personnel under the direction of an experienced soil engineer. 4. The compacted fill materials shall be free of deleterious, organic, or frozen matter, shall contain no chemicals that may result in the material being classified as “contaminated”, and shall be low-expansive with a maximum Liquid Limit (ASTM D-423) and Plasticity Index (ASTM D-424) of 30 and 15, respectively, unless specifically tested and found to have low expansive properties and approved by an experienced soils engineer. The top 12 inches of compacted fill should have a maximum 3-inch-particle diameter and all underlying compacted fill a maximum 6-inch-diameter unless specifically approved by an experienced soils engineer. All fill materials must be tested and approved under the direction of an experienced soils engineer prior to placement. If the fill is to provide non-frost susceptible characteristics, it must be classified as a clean GW, GP, SW or SP per the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487). 5. For structural fill depths less than 20 feet, the density of the structural compacted fill and scarified subgrade and grades shall not be less than 95 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by Standard Proctor (ASTM-698) with the exception of the top 12 inches of pavement subgrade which shall have a minimum in-situ density of 100 percent of maximum dry density, or 5 percent higher than underlying fill materials. Where the structural fill depth is greater than 20 feet, the portions below 20 feet should have a minimum in-place density of 100 percent of its maximum dry density of 5 percent greater than the top 20 feet. The moisture content of cohesive soil shall not vary by more than -1 to +3 percent and granular soil ±3 percent of the optimum when placed and compacted or recompacted, unless specifically recommended/approved by the soils engineer monitoring the placement and compaction. Cohesive soils with moderate to high expansion potentials (PI>15) should, however, be placed, compacted and maintained prior to construction at a moisture content 3±1 percent above optimum moisture content to limit further heave. The fill shall be placed in layers with a maximum loose thickness of 8 inches for foundations and 10 inches for floor slabs and pavement, unless specifically approved by the soils engineer taking into consideration the type of materials and compaction equipment being used. The compaction equipment should consist of suitable mechanical equipment specifically designed for soil compaction. Bulldozers or similar tracked vehicles are typically not suitable for compaction. 6. Excavation, filling, subgrade and grade preparation shall be performed in a manner and sequence that will provide drainage at all times and proper control of erosion. Precipitation, springs and seepage water encountered shall be pumped or drained to provide a suitable working platform. Springs or water seepage encountered during grading/foundation construction must be called to the soil engineer’s attention immediately for possible construction procedure revision or inclusion of an underdrain system. 7. Non-structural fill adjacent to structural fill should typically be placed in unison to provide lateral support. Backfill along walls must be placed and compacted with care to ensure excessive unbalanced lateral pressures do not develop. The type of fill material placed adjacent to below-grade walls (i.e. basement walls and retaining walls) must be properly tested and approved by an experienced soils engineer with consideration for the lateral pressure used in the wall design. 8. Whenever, in the opinion of the soils engineer or the Owner’s Representatives, an unstable condition is being created either by cutting or filling, the work shall not proceed into that area until an appropriate geotechnical exploration and analysis has been performed and the grading plan revised, if found necessary. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. Page 42 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 53 With Dust Palliative With Bituminous Treatment GW Good: tractor, rubber-tired, steel wheel or vibratory roller 125-135 Almost none Good drainage, pervious Very stable Excellent Good Fair to poor Excellent GP Good: tractor, rubber-tired, steel wheel or vibratory roller 115-125 Almost none Good drainage, pervious Reasonably stable Excellent to good Poor to fair Poor GM Good: rubber-tired or light sheepsfoot roller 120-135 Slight Poor drainage, semipervious Reasonably stable Excellent to good Fair to poor Poor Poor to fair GC Good to fair: rubber-tired or sheepsfoot roller 115-130 Slight Poor drainage, impervious Reasonably stable Good Good to fair ** Excellent Excellent SW Good: tractor, rubber-tired or vibratory roller 110-130 Almost none Good drainage, pervious Very stable Good Fair to poor Fair to poor Good SP Good: tractor, rubber-tired or vibratory roller 100-120 Almost none Good drainage, pervious Reasonably stable when dense Good to fair Poor Poor Poor to fair SM Good: rubber-tired or sheepsfoot roller 110-125 Slight Poor drainage, impervious Reasonably stable when dense Good to fair Poor Poor Poor to fair SC Good to fair: rubber-tired or sheepsfoot roller 105-125 Slight to medium Poor drainage, impervious Reasonably stable Good to fair Fair to poor Excellent Excellent ML Good to poor: rubber-tired or sheepsfoot roller 95-120 Slight to medium Poor drainage, impervious Poor stability, high density required Fair to poor Not suitable Poor Poor CL Good to fair: sheepsfoot or rubber- tired roller 95-120 Medium No drainage, impervious Good stability Fair to poor Not suitable Poor Poor OL Fair to poor: sheepsfoot or rubber- tired roller 80-100 Medium to high Poor drainage, impervious Unstable, should not be used Poor Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable MH Fair to poor: sheepsfoot or rubber- tired roller 70-95 High Poor drainage, impervious Poor stability, should not be used Poor Not suitable Very poor Not suitable CH Fair to poor: sheepsfoot roller 80-105 Very high No drainage, impervious Fair stability, may soften on expansion Poor to very poor Not suitable Very poor Not suitable OH Fair to poor: sheepsfoot roller 65-100 High No drainage, impervious Unstable, should not be used Very poor Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable Pt Not suitable Very high Fair to poor drainage Should not be used Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable * "The Unified Classification: Appendix A - Characteristics of Soil, Groups Pertaining to Roads and Airfields, and Appendix B - Characteristics of Soil Groups Pertaining to Embankments and Foundations," Technical Memorandum 357, U.S. Waterways Ixperiment Station, Vicksburg, 1953. ** Not suitable if subject to frost. GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. CHARACTERISTICS AND RATINGS OF UNIFIED SOIL SYSTEM CLASSES FOR SOIL CONSTRUCTION * Value as Temporary Pavement Class Compaction Characteristics Max. Dry Density Standard Proctor (pcf) Compressibility and Expansion Drainage and Permeability Value as an Embankment Material Value as Subgrade When Not Subject to Frost Value as Base Course Page 43 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 54 Giles Engineering Associates, Inc. UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (ASTM D-2487) Major Divisions Group Symbols Typical Names Laboratory Classifi cation Criteria Co a r s e - g r a i n e d s o i l s (m o r e t h a n h a l f o f m a t e r i a l i s l a r g e r t h a n N o . 2 0 0 s i e v e s i z e ) Gr a v e l s (M o r e t h a n h a l f o f c o a r s e f r a c t i o n i s l a r g e r th a n N o . 4 s i e v e s i z e ) Cl e a n g r a v e l s (l i t t l e o r n o fi n e s ) GW Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fi nes De t e r m i n e p e r c e n t a g e s o f s a n d a n d g r a v e l f r o m g r a i n - s i z e c u r v e . De t e r m i n e p e r c e n t a g e s o f s a n d a n d g r a v e l f r o m g r a i n - s i z e c u r v e . De p e n d i n g o n p e r c e n t a g e o f f i n e s ( f r a c t i o n s m a l l e r t h a n N o . 2 0 0 s i e v e s i z e ) , c o a r s e - De p e n d i n g o n p e r c e n t a g e o f f i n e s ( f r a c t i o n s m a l l e r t h a n N o . 2 0 0 s i e v e s i z e ) , c o a r s e - De p e n d i n g o n p e r c e n t a g e o f f i n e s ( f r a c t i o n s m a l l e r t h a n N o . 2 0 0 s i e v e s i z e ) , c o a r s e - De p e n d i n g o n p e r c e n t a g e o f f i n e s ( f r a c t i o n s m a l l e r t h a n N o . 2 0 0 s i e v e s i z e ) , c o a r s e - De p e n d i n g o n p e r c e n t a g e o f f i n e s ( f r a c t i o n s m a l l e r t h a n N o . 2 0 0 s i e v e s i z e ) , c o a r s e - gr a i n e d s o i l s a r e c l a s s i f i e d a s f o l l o w s : L e s s t h a n 5 p e r c e n t : G W , G P , S W , S P L e s s t h a n 5 p e r c e n t : G W , G P , S W , S P L e s s t h a n 5 p e r c e n t : G W , G P , S W , S P L e s s t h a n 5 p e r c e n t : G W , G P , S W , S P M o r e t h a n 1 2 p e r c e n t : G M , G C , S M , S C M o r e t h a n 1 2 p e r c e n t : G M , G C , S M , S C M o r e t h a n 1 2 p e r c e n t : G M , G C , S M , S C M o r e t h a n 1 2 p e r c e n t : G M , G C , S M , S C 5 t o 1 2 p e r c e n t : 5 t o 1 2 p e r c e n t : Bo r d e r l i n e c a s e s r e q u i r i n g d u a l s y m b o l s b Cu = greater than 4; Cc = between 1 and 3 GP Poorly graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtrues, little or no fi nes Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW Gr a v e l s w i t h f i n e s (a p p r e c i a b l e a m o u n t o f fi n e s ) GMa d Silty gravels, gravel- sand-silt mixtures Atterberg limits below “A” line or P.I. less than 4 Limits plotting within shaded area, above “A” line with P.I. between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols u GC Clayey gravels, gravel- sand-clay mixtures Atterberg limits above “A” line or P.I. greater than 7 Sa n d s (M o r e t h a n h a l f o f c o a r s e f r a c t i o n i s sm a l l e r t h a n N o . 4 s i e v e s i z e ) Cl e a n s a n d s (L i t t l e o r n o fi n e s ) SW Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fi nes Cu = greater than 4; Cc = between 1 and 3 SP Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fi nes Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW Sa n d s w i t h f i n e s (A p p r e c i a b l e a m o u n t of f i n e s ) SMa d Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures Atterberg limits below “A” line or P.I. less than 4 Limits plotting within shaded area, above “A” line with P.I. between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols u SC Clayey sands, sand-clay Clayey sands, sand-clay Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Atterberg limits above “A” line or P.I. greater than 7 Fi n e - g r a i n e d s o i l s (M o r e t h a n h a l f m a t e r i a l i s s m a l l e r t h a n N o . 2 0 0 s i e v e s i z e ) Si l t s a n d c l a y s (L i q u i d l i m i t l e s s t h a n 5 0 ) ML Inorganic silts and very fi ne sands, rock fl our, silty or clayey fi ne sands, or clayey silts with slight plasticity CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Si l t s a n d c l a y s (L i q u i d l i m i t g r e a t e r t h a n 5 0 ) MH Inorganic silts, mica- ceous or diatomaceous fi ne sandy or silty soils, elastic silts CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts Hi g h l y or g a n i c so i l s Pt Peat and other highly organic soils D = greater than 4; CD = greater than 4; C60 = greater than 4; C60 = greater than 4; CD = greater than 4; CD = greater than 4; C 10 = greater than 4; C (D = between 1 and 3 (D = between 1 and 330 = between 1 and 330 = between 1 and 3) = between 1 and 3) = between 1 and 3 2 D = between 1 and 3D = between 1 and 3 10 x D = between 1 and 3 x D = between 1 and 3 60 = between 1 and 3 D60 = greater than 4; C60 = greater than 4; CD = greater than 4; CD = greater than 4; C 10 = greater than 4; C (D = between 1 and 3 (D = between 1 and 330 = between 1 and 330 = between 1 and 3) = between 1 and 3) = between 1 and 3 2 D = between 1 and 3D = between 1 and 3 10 x D = between 1 and 3 x D = between 1 and 3 60 = between 1 and 3 Plasticity Chart Pl a s t i c i t y I n d e x 0 10 50 1000 10 50 10020900 10 50 1000 10 50 100800 10 50 10020900 10 50 100800 10 50 1000 10 50 100700 10 50 10020900 10 50 100700 10 50 1000 10 50 100600 10 50 10020900 10 50 100600 10 50 1000 10 50 100400 10 50 10020900 10 50 100400 10 50 1000 10 50 100300 10 50 10020900 10 50 100300 10 50 1000 10 50 60 40 20 30 CH OH and MHOH and MH CL ML and OLML and OL CL-ML “A” l i n e Liquid Limit a Division of GM and SM groups into subdivisions of d and u are for roads and airfi elds only. Subdivision is based on Atterberg limits, suffi x d used when L.L. is 28 or less and the P.I. is 6 or less; the suffi x u is used when L.L. is greater than 28. b Borderline classifi cations, used for soils possessing characteristics of two groups, are designated by combinations of group sympols. For example GW-GC, well-graded gravel-sand mixture with clay binder.Page 44 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 55 GILES ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC. GENERAL NOTES SAMPLE IDENTIFICATION All samples are visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System (ASTM D-2487-75 or D-2488-75) DESCRIPTIVE TERM (% BY DRY WEIGHT) PARTICLE SIZE (DIAMETER) Trace: 1-10% Boulders: 8 inch and larger Little: 11-20% Cobbles: 3 inch to 8 inch Some: 21-35% Gravel: coarse - ¾ to 3 inch And/Adjective 36-50% fine – No. 4 (4.76 mm) to ¾ inch Sand: coarse – No. 4 (4.76 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) medium – No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) fine – No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Silt: No. 200 (0.074 mm) and smaller (non-plastic) Clay: No 200 (0.074 mm) and smaller (plastic) SOIL PROPERTY SYMBOLS DRILLING AND SAMPLING SYMBOLS Dd: Dry Density (pcf) SS: Split-Spoon LL: Liquid Limit, percent ST: Shelby Tube – 3 inch O.D. (except where noted) PL: Plastic Limit, percent CS: 3 inch O.D. California Ring Sampler PI: Plasticity Index (LL-PL) DC: Dynamic Cone Penetrometer per ASTM LOI: Loss on Ignition, percent Special Technical Publication No. 399 Gs: Specific Gravity AU: Auger Sample K: Coefficient of Permeability DB: Diamond Bit w: Moisture content, percent CB: Carbide Bit qp: Calibrated Penetrometer Resistance, tsf WS: Wash Sample qs: Vane-Shear Strength, tsf RB: Rock-Roller Bit qu: Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf BS: Bulk Sample qc: Static Cone Penetrometer Resistance Note: Depth intervals for sampling shown on Record of (correlated to Unconfined Compressive Strength, tsf) Subsurface Exploration are not indicative of sample PID: Results of vapor analysis conducted on representative recovery, but position where sampling initiated samples utilizing a Photoionization Detector calibrated to a benzene standard. Results expressed in HNU-Units. (BDL=Below Detection Limit) N: Penetration Resistance per 12 inch interval, or fraction thereof, for a standard 2 inch O.D. (1⅜ inch I.D.) split spoon sampler driven with a 140 pound weight free-falling 30 inches. Performed in general accordance with Standard Penetration Test Specifications (ASTM D- 1586). N in blows per foot equals sum of N-Values where plus sign (+) is shown. Nc: Penetration Resistance per 1¾ inches of Dynamic Cone Penetrometer. Approximately equivalent to Standard Penetration Test N-Value in blows per foot. Nr: Penetration Resistance per 12 inch interval, or fraction thereof, for California Ring Sampler driven with a 140 pound weight free-falling 30 inches per ASTM D-3550. Not equivalent to Standard Penetration Test N-Value. SOIL STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS COHESIVE (CLAYEY) SOILS NON-COHESIVE (GRANULAR) SOILS UNCONFINED COMPARATIVE BLOWS PER COMPRESSIVE RELATIVE BLOWS PER CONSISTENCY FOOT (N) STRENGTH (TSF) DENSITY FOOT (N) Very Soft 0 - 2 0 - 0.25 Very Loose 0 - 4 Soft 3 - 4 0.25 - 0.50 Loose 5 - 10 Medium Stiff 5 – 8 0.50 - 1.00 Firm 11 - 30 Stiff 9 – 15 1.00 - 2.00 Dense 31 - 50 Very Stiff 16 – 30 2.00 - 4.00 Very Dense 51+ Hard 31+ 4.00+ DEGREE OF DEGREE OF EXPANSIVE PLASTICITY PI POTENTIAL PI None to Slight 0 - 4 Low 0 - 15 Slight 5 - 10 Medium 15 - 25 Medium 11 - 30 High 25+ High to Very High 31+ Page 45 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 56 Page 46 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 57 Page 47 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 58 Page 48 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 59 March 14, 2019 Matthew K. McCasland Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services PO BOX 7190 Madison, WI 53707-7190 RE:18 COM 199 – City of Muskego Dear Attorney McCasland, This letter is to serve as the City of Muskego’s response to the alleged City Code violation relating to the lowest floor (basement) height of Mr. Forrest Sirovina’s property located at S82 W13115 Acker Drive, Muskego, WI. Municipal Code Section 400-31(B)(1) regulates the lowest floor elevation, in this case a basement, above the highest anticipated seasonal groundwater level. The code language is as follows: Adequate drainage required. No principal building shall be erected, structurally altered, or relocated on land which is not adequately drained at all times nor which is subject to periodic flooding, nor so that the lowest floor level is less than two feet above the highest anticipated seasonal groundwater level. An occupancy permit and zoning permit shall not be issued for any lot where the grading plan approved for that lot at the time of its platting has not been accomplished. The two State Code sections that the complainant is stating the City is violating in this instance do not appear to apply to groundwater separation in any form. Wis. Admin. Code SPS 321.15(3) applies to soil bearing capacity, not groundwater separation. These are very separate and non-related items. The other cited Code section from the complainant, Wis. Admin. Code SPS 321.17, relates to when drain tile or pipe systems shall be installed. The City is not questioning or altering when these systems need to be installed. We agree with and follow the State’s regulations on this. The groundwater separation requirement is only there to look at how far the lowest floor is above the groundwater, not soil bearing capacity and not if or what type of drain tile system is required. The State Codes do not appear to identify that houses have to be allowed below the groundwater level or that a municipality cannot regulate floor height above groundwater level. It merely states “a complete drain tile or pipe system shall be installed around the foundation of dwellings under construction where groundwater occurs above the bottom of the footing.” It is our understanding from this that if the lowest floor is above the groundwater level, then no drain tile system is required. This is just clarifying when a drain tile system is needed. This is similar to when the State Codes state that if a building is over two stories that it has to have a certain type of egress, but that does not mean that the City has to allow a building that is over two stories tall. Or when the State Codes state that a dwelling can be located with no lot line setback if certain fire rated construction occurs, that does not mean that that City has to allow a dwelling with no setback as we are allowed to have our own setback/offset regulations. The City’s groundwater separation regulation (Section 400-31(B)(1)) is located within the City’s Zoning Code (Chapter 400) and not within the Building Code (Chapter 164). If the State Codes allow a Zoning Ordinance to set a minimum finished yard grade height, why can’t the Zoning Ordinance set a minimum floor height based on the groundwater level? In the City’s eyes this is a Zoning regulation. This code section has always been in the Zoning Code and has always been enforced by Engineering and /or Planning staff, not the building inspectors. Planning Division Adam Trzebiatowski, AICP, Planning Manager (262) 679-4136 Page 49 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 60 If the City and/or the State where to allow someone to build within known groundwater, there are numerous concerns that this could bring up within the City. One of the concerns with a home being placed within groundwater is where all of the discharged groundwater goes once it is pumped to the surface. This water has the potential of being pumped 24/7 and all of that water has to flow somewhere. This could lead to possible concerns with ditches and culverts being able to handle this potentially constant flowing water. This could even possibly lead to potential flooding of adjacent lands/homes and/or the need for further public improvements to handle a possible constant flow and/or pooling of water. The City has also looked into how other communities handle seasonal high groundwater levels, since we believe the State Codes do not address this issue. We have found that this type of separation requirement is common in many portions of southeastern Wisconsin. Some of the government agencies that have such regulations include Waukesha County, Town of Mukwonago, Town of Vernon, Village of Menomonee Falls, and Town of Lisbon, just to name a few. These government agencies require a distance above the groundwater between one to three feet. Relating to the past correspondence between DSPS, the complainant, and the City, we want to make sure some items are clear. Initially, Jenny Roets, a UDC Consultant with DSPS, sent an email to Scott Schulpius on May 18, 2018 and stated that she believed that the City was being too restrictive with the groundwater separation requirement. The City did not receive this information until after the Sirovina’s permit was applied for in August 2018. When the City received this correspondence, one of the City’s Building Inspectors, Jared Stawicki, reached out to Jenny Roets via phone to discuss this concern on August 30, 2018. Jenny Roets, from DSPS, stated that this topic was not her area of expertise and that she suggested that we talk with her supervisor, Michael McNally for more details/information. Per that recommendation, two separate City staff members, Scott Kroeger – Public Works & Development Director and Jared Stawicki – Building Inspector, then reached out to Michael McNally via phone. Scott and Jared both had very similar conversations with Michael McNally. In those conversations Michael McNally stated that while he can see this situation both ways, the only way that he and his Department could make a formal determination would be to have the applicant file a formal complaint/review through DSPS. This same information was eventually provided to the City in an email correspondence between Michael McNally and the applicant. If there are any questions please feel free to contact Kroeger, Public Works & Development Director, at 262- 679-5686 or Adam Trzebiatowski, Planning Manager, at 262-679-5598. Sincerely, Scott Kroeger, PE, PLS, ENV SP, MBA Adam Trzebiatowski, AICP Public Works & Development Director Planning Manager CC:Jeffrey Warchol, City of Muskego Attorney Page 50 of 50 Request for Waiver from Municipal Code 400-31(B)(1) at... Packet Page 61