Special Village Board Packet 02/24/2026

SPECIAL VILLAGE BOARD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 2026, 4:00PM 133 CRESCENT ST MAZOMANIE, WI 53560 Please take notice that there will be a public meeting of the above governmental body, on the date, time, and place indicated for purposes considering the subject matter set forth in the following agenda. T he following agenda will be followed: 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Additions/Corrections/Approval of the Agenda 4. Approve meeting minutes from February 10, 2026 5. Citizen Comment on any subject not on the agenda 6. OLD BUSINESS (The following items may have action taken) a. Presentation from Mazomanie Fire Department regarding the purchase of fire apparatus . 7. N EW BUSINESS (The following items may have action taken) a. Approval of the dumpster and recycle placement at Walter Crossing Townhomes. b. Approval of the site plan for Plastic Ingenuity Expansion. c. Approval of site plan for new home construction at 509 Ridge Drive pursuant to §415-10. 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT A ny person who has a qualifying disability, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, that requires the meeting or materials at the meeting to be in an accessible location for format, must contact the Village Clerk at (608) 795-2100, at least 24-hours prior to the commencement of the meeting so that any necessary/reasonable arrangements can be made to accommodate each request. P osted: 2/19/26 Angie Volkman Board Minutes February 10, 2026 Members Present: Natalie Beil, Village President; Rob Westerlund, Ray Schlamp, Karen Peterson, Jim Marx, Justin Martinez, and Dawn Forseth. Absent Member: None Attendance: Curt Erickson (Administrator/CEO), Angie Volkman (Clerk/Treasurer), Tara Roessler (Deputy Clerk/Treasurer), Nate Teuscher (Dane County Deputy), and Camden Parman (Village of Mazomanie Fire Dept – Chief) Meeting was called to order at 5:00pm by Natalie Beil, Village President. Motion by Forseth, second by Marx to approve the agenda. Motion carried unanimously. Motion by Martinez, second by Peterson to approve minutes from January 13, 2026. Motion carried unanimously. Appearances & Significant Correspondence (the Village reserves the right to require people to register). None VILLAGE PRESIDENT’S REPORT. Natalie stated that the Administrator’s report in the packet covered all of the topics. VILLAGE STAFF REPORTS: FIRE/EMS. Parman noted that EMS is scheduled to meet on Thursday, February 12, to address an unexpected expense that was not included in the budget. DANE COUNTY SHERIFF’s. Teuscher provided an update on the Black Earth and Mazomanie Police Department activity for January 2026. During the month, there were a total of 217 calls for service, including 126 in Mazomanie and 91 in Black Earth. Teuscher noted a few of the “noteworthy calls for service” to the Board. VILLAGE ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT. Erickson’s report was included in the packet but highlighted the following from his report: 1. Plan Commission. Erickson noted to the Board that a Plan Commission meeting was held on Monday, February 9, and a motion to table action on 509 Ridge Drive was recommended due to the lack of necessary materials available. A stop work order was issued 1/21 due to a violation of Zoning Ordinance 415-10(E) Preservation of Topography. The next Plan Commission meeting will be held Monday, February 23, 2026 at 9:00am which will consider action for 509 Ridge Drive, Plastic Ingenuity’s expansion, and the Looye Development dumpster placement. 2. Streets. Erickson reported that he is working with the Department of Transportation to discuss lowering the speed limit further west near the Village’s cemetery due to the potential expansion of Plastic Ingenuity and Cardinal Glass, the Village has expressed concerns about traffic safety in the area. In coordination with our Deputy, Erickson was able to get the accident data showing eight reported incidents since 2023, three of which involved vehicle–deer collisions. Public Works Director Report. The Public Works report was included in the meeting packet. Library Director Report. The Library Director report was included in the meeting packet. Clerk/Treasurer Report. The report was included in the board packet. Volkman noted that the Spring Primary is Tuesday, February 17, 2026, with voting 7am-8pm. Deputy Clerk/Treasurer Report. The report was emailed to the Board. Roessler provided examples of tasks that were noted in her report. OLD BUSINESS (The following items will be discussed and may have action taken on them.) None NEW BUSINESS (The following items will be discussed and may have action taken on them.) a. Approve the recommendation to maintain angled parking on Crescent Street and to not include a portion of State St from Crescent St. to E. Hudson St. during the 2026 Street Project. Motion by Marx, second by Martinez to approve the recommendation. Motion carried unanimously. b. Presentation by Mazomanie Fire Department regarding replacement fire apparatus options. Parman was unable to prepare the presentation in time for this meeting c. Approve an alarm system fee per year – Residential $25; Commercial $50 per ordinance 150-11 (permits for private alarm systems). Motion by Martinez, second by Peterson to approve an alarm system fee per year. Motion carried unanimously. COMMITTEES (The following items will be discussed and may have action taken on them) a. PERSONNEL COMMITTEE – (Forseth). Dawn Forseth noted nothing at this time. b. PUBLIC WORKS & PROPERTY (Marx). Marx noted nothing at this time. c. PARKS & RECREATION COMMITTEE (Marx). Erickson reported that the Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan will begin in March. He also noted that a Lake Marion/Bluff volunteer meeting is scheduled for February 18 at 4:30 p.m. d. PUBLIC PROPTECTION & ORDINANCE COMMITTEE (Martinez). Erickson reported that the Village is awaiting the Village Attorney’s review of seven (7) ordinances. e. FINANCE COMMITTEE (Beil). Beil noted that finance will need to meet next month. Payment of Bills. Motion by Marx, second by Peterson to pay the bills. Motion carried unanimously. f. PLAN COMMISSION (Beil). Beil reported that a Plan Commission meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 23. g. PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (Marx). Marx noted nothing at this time. h. HISTORIC PRESERV ATION COMMITTEE (Martinez). Martinez reported that a meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 11 at 9am. i. VISIONARY ALLIANCE (Peterson). Peterson reported that she would like to schedule a joint meeting with the Public Works Department. j. V ANGUARD COMMISSION (Marx/Schlamp). Schlamp provided an update that Vanguard is purchasing a new truck. k. DANE-IOWA WASTEWATER COMMISSION (Erickson). Erickson reported that Superintendent Jeff Moyer will retire in May. Shawn will assume the role of Superintendent, and Mitchell will move into Shawn’s current position, leaving that position vacant. l. DISTRICT ONE EMS (Forseth). Forseth reported that the meeting is scheduled for Thursday, February 13, 2026. Motion to move into closed session was made by Forseth, second by Martinez at 5:38pm pursuant to Wisconsin State Statutes 19.85(1)(c) considering employment, promotion, compensation, performance, evaluation data of any public employee over which the governmental body has jurisdiction or exercises responsibility. (Fire Department). Roll Call Vote passes 7 to 0. Motion to move into open session was made by Martinez, second by Marx. Motion carried unanimously. ANNOUNCEMENTS. Beil announced the Lake Marion and Bluff Park volunteer meeting on Wednesday, February 18th. ADJOURNMENT. Motion by Peterson, second by Martinez to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m. Angie Volkman, Clerk/Treasurer Mazomanie Fire Department 133 Crescent Street Mazomanie, Wisconsin 53560 www.fire-ems.net/firedept/view/MazomanieWI October 10, 2009 T o: Mazomanie Village Board T he Mazomanie Fire Department proposes to replace the existing truck known as Ladder One with a newer, used vehicle currently available from Command Fire Apparatus. B ACKGROUND: Mazomanie’s original ladder truck had an 85 foot aluminum ladder, a large complement of ground ladders, lots of other portable equipment, and a 1000 gallons per minute (GPM) pump. The 1968 truck was purchased in 1991 from Lombard, IL for about $37,000. The first ladder truck was acquired after a mutual aid ladder from Mount Horeb played an important role in two large downtown fires. With the aid of the ladder truck, the fires were contained preventing damage to adjacent structures. The 1968 truck developed engine problems in 2001. No parts were available for the old gas-powered engine, which is the primary reason that it was replaced with the existing 1971 vintage truck. T he present 1971 American LaFrance Ladder 1 was purchased in 2001at a cost of $6, 000 plus the trade-in of the 1968 Mack. The present truck has a 100 foot steel ladder but no pump or water tank. The vehicle, powered by a 6V71 Detroit diesel engine, has a five-speed manual transmission. This is a classic vehicle with 40 year old technology. The standard transmission is difficult to drive, even for an experienced driver, and the aerial ladder has loading limitations that limit or prohibit its operation at low angles. P ROPOSED REPLACEMENT: The truck that we are proposing to purchase is a 1997 E -1 “quint.” It has a 8V71 Detroit diesel engine with an automatic transmission, and a 75’ ladder with a pre-piped nozzle that can be operated on the tip of either the bed section or the fly section of the aerial ladder. There is a 1,500 GPM pump, and a 500 gallon booster tank, as well as many compartments for equipment. It has a full complement of ground ladders and an on-board generator. This truck does not have the load limitations that restrict our use of the existing ladder, and the pump and tank are a major advantage and addition to the departments capabilities . S UMMARY: In the early 1990s, our long-range plans called for $75,000 to be spent in about 1999 to refurbish old Engine 2, and another $75,000 to refurbish Ladder 1 about five years later. This money had to be spent in 1999 to purchase the new Engine 2 when the old 1972 Mack pumper developed major un- repairable transmission problems. The 1971 ladder truck has been an asset to us for eight years, but it has outlived its useful life as a piece of firefighting equipment. We estimate that the quality construction and the aluminum body on the 1997 truck will allow it to serve the village for another 20 – 25 years. R ECOMMENDATION: The Mazomanie Volunteer Fire Department recommends that the Mazomanie Village Board provides approval to move forward with the purchase of the 1997 E -1 Quint Ladder truck described. The Department is seeking approval for $208,000. This figure includes the initial truck cost plus expected costs to place the truck in service in the Village of Mazomanie. The Department also requests approval from the Village Board to liquidate the existing vehicle and apply any funds received to the cost of the ladder apparatus. Village Board Meeting – February 24, 2026 Plan Commission – February 23, 2026 Re: Dumpster Enclosure Placement – Walter Crossing Townhomes Background The applicants, Scott & Kevin Looye, requested Plan Commission consideration of a proposed dumpster enclosure location at the Walter Crossing Townhomes. Previous locations presented to the Plan Commission at the November 17, 2025 meeting included: • Between the two principal buildings; and • The southeast corner of the lot near the Walter–Emily Road intersection. Based on feedback received from the Plan Commission and discussing with neighbors that reside at 611 Ridge Drive, the applicants are now proposing placement at the northeast corner of their 4-unit complex, near the north driveway and in proximity to the Village’s stormwater retention easement. Zoning and Code Review Staff and the Plan Commission has reviewed the proposal for compliance with applicable Village ordinances. • Driveway Width: The proposed driveway opening serving the enclosure will not exceed 30 feet in width at the roadway, consistent with the Village’s driveway ordinance §201-2. • Setback: The enclosure is proposed to be located approximately 23 feet from the road right-of-way (20’ for R-4 District) §415-20(D). • Height: The enclosure will not exceed a maximum height of six (6) feet §415-86(B). • Stormwater Easement: The proposed location is near the Village’s stormwater retention easement. Final placement of both the concrete pad and enclosure must be verified to ensure they are located outside of the easement area. Analysis The proposed north-end placement provides convenient access from the existing driveway while maintaining required setbacks and dimensional standards. Due to the proximity of the Village’s stormwater retention easement, verification of the easement boundaries is necessary prior to final approval to prevent encroachment. Should the pad or enclosure encroach on the easement, the Looye’s will be responsible for Village utility work that may damage or remove their structure. The orientation of the enclosure opening will determine whether a gate is required for screening purposes: • If the enclosure opening faces south, a gate will not be required. • If the enclosure opening faces east, a gate will be required. Plan Commission Action The Plan Commission moved to conditionally approve the placement of the dumpster enclosure at the northeast end of the buildings, subject to the following conditions: 1. Verification that the concrete pad and enclosure are located outside of the Village’s stormwater retention easement. 2. Compliance with gate requirements based on enclosure orientation, as outlined above. 525 Junction Rd | Suite 7000 | Madison, Wisconsin 53717 Phone: 608-826-0532 | Fax: 608-826-0530 | vierbicher.com February 16, 2026 Chair and Members of the Village Plan Commission Village of Mazomanie 133 Crescent St., PO Box 26 Mazomanie, WI 53560 Re: Site Plan for Plastic Ingenuity, Village of Mazomanie Dear Chairperson Beil and Plan Commission Members: The above-referenced site plan application was received in our office for review on behalf of the Village of Mazomanie. The Applicant/Owner is Plastic Ingenuity. This site portrays the intended future expansion of their facility in the Village of Mazomanie. Vierbicher staff reviewed the following four (4) application materials (received February 6, 2026 unless otherwise noted): • 2026.01.16 PI Mazo Warehouse Schedule • 2025.10.06 Geo Tech Report • 260204_Plastic Ingenuity - Plan Commission (this is Ideal Builders & Sketchworks Architectures’ renderings) • Plan Set 2026-02-06 (the Site Plan) Summary of Request Plastic Ingenuity desires to expand their Mazomanie facility with a 280ft x 800ft building with loading docks, plus access drives and parking. To facilitate this business expansion, the Applicant in late CY2025 pursued a Certified Survey Map (CSM No. 16966) to combine five (5) legal parcels into one (1) legal parcel, as well as a rezoning for the four (4) smaller parcels along Hudson St. from A-1 Agricultural/Holding District to the I-1 Industrial District. Now, Plastic Ingenuity and its team have prepared a Site Plan to fulfill the requirements of §415-93 Site Plan Approval & the Site Plan checklist per §215-11(5) Stormwater Management Plan Requirements. This site plan requires review and recommendation by the Plan Commission, and subsequent review and approval by the Village Board. “Action Items” in this letter represent actionable items the Village team needs prior to a building permit being issued for construction; these action items are represented in the possible motion language to conditionally approve. Site Information Location: One (1) parcel south of Hudson St.: 153/0806-172-0001-1 Adjacent Land Uses: N – residential (Town of Mazomanie) E, S – Industrial February 18, 2026 Page 2 of 6 W – Agricultural (Town of Mazomanie) Zoning: I-1 Industrial District Review Comments Action items for the Village to consider, sorted by the four (4) materials provided for this review: 2026.01.16 PI Mazo Warehouse Schedule 1. The Schedule outlines component steps necessary for project completion. Line 33 notes a start construction date of Mon April 13, 2026, while Line 55 notes a substantial completion date of Thursday April 1, 2027. Action Item 1: Plastic Ingenuity and its team shall share with the Village (staff; Christian Reid, PE; Matt Miller, AICP, CNU-A) submitted as well as approved materials related to schedule line items: 12. State Plan Review; 16. County/ DNR Approvals; 17. DSPS Site Plumbing Approvals Any/all necessary building permits; erosion control and/or stormwater management permits; or other Village/Dane County/State of Wisconsin permits shall be obtained prior to construction commencing. 2. Schedule Line 35 references Site Utilities. Action Item 2: If the expansion necessitates updated/upsized utility services from the Village of Mazomanie, Plastic Ingenuity and the Village of Mazomanie shall have a Developer Agreement prepared, reviewed by respective legal counsels, signed, and recorded at the Dane County Register of Deeds at Applicant expense prior to construction commencing. 2025.10.06 Geo Tech Report 3. The GeoTech report on page 1/37 states that: “Based on the planned finished floor elevation in relation to existing site grades, fills on the order of about 5.5 to 7.5± ft are typically anticipated to achieve finished site grades within the area of the proposed building. However, fills on the order of about 16.5 ft are expected within the areas of the existing stormwater basins.” Action Item 3: Plastic Ingenuity team shall clarify the estimated total quantity of fill (in cubic yards and corresponding truckloads) needed. This includes material moved within the site, as well as material brought in from elsewhere. 4. The GeoTech report on page 3/37 for ‘1. Site Preparation’ states that: “topsoil be stripped/removed at least 10 ft beyond the proposed construction areas, including areas required for cuts and fills beyond the proposed building footprints and pavement areas. The topsoil can be stockpiled on-site and re-used as fill in landscaped areas. February 18, 2026 Page 3 of 6 Action Item 4: Plastic Ingenuity team shall clarify topsoil stockpiling locations on site to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer. 5. The GeoTech report on page 4/37 for ‘1. Site Preparation’ states that CGC recommends that: “fill placement to the design slab subgrade elevation occur early in the development.” Question: Based upon schedule line 34 anticipating ‘site grading/building prep’ in April 2026, what concerns, if any, does the Plastic Ingenuity team or Village have regarding dust/vibration/noise impacts to adjacent property owners? What will construction hours be? 6. The GeoTech report on page 5/37 for ‘2. Foundation Design’ states that “interior footings have no minimum requirement.” Action Item 5: Plastic Ingenuity team shall clarify interior footings planned depth to the Village. 7. The GeoTech report on page 9/37 for ‘7. Stormwater Infiltration Potential’ states that CGC recommends that: “the soils at and several feet below the bottom of stormwater management system be checked by a certified soil tester in conjunction with the basin designer to document that the soils are appropriate for the design infiltration rate or recommend remedial measures, if necessary.” Action Item 6: Plastic Ingenuity team shall have soils at/below the bottom of the stormwater management system checked by a certified soil tester in conjunction with the basin designer. This information shall be shared with the Village Engineer. Remedial measures and their specifications, if necessary, shall be shared with the Village Engineer then enacted. 8. Action Item 7: CGC’s ‘Construction Considerations’ & ‘Recommended Construction Monitoring’ shall be followed to the maximum extent practicable. 260204_Plastic Ingenuity - Plan Commission (Ideal Builders & Sketchworks Architectures’ renderings) This architectural planset portrays the intended warehouse addition. A couple fast facts: • Estimated 222,472 GSF • The warehouse building expansion is 280 ft wide by 800 ft long (excluding the connection to the existing building). • Fifteen (15) parking stalls – twelve (12) standard; two (2) van accessible; one (1) accessible • Ten (10) loading bays on eastern elevation (façade), with one (1) 15’x15’ overhead door on western elevation (façade). • Dimensioned office/lounge/breakroom/restrooms are portrayed on sheet 2/5. • There are twenty (20) ‘people doors’ across the four (4) elevations (facades). Question: Based upon the anticipated finished grades / finished floor elevation as well as seeing depictions of the twenty (20) ‘people doors,’ how would someone in a wheelchair enter this new warehouse addition? Through the existing building/connection to the south? The parking lot along the eastern elevation (near the seven loading bays, see depiction ‘East Elevation’) provisions accessible parking, but does not have accessible entry into the building? February 18, 2026 Page 4 of 6 Question: On Sheets 1 and 4/5, are small(er) trucks utilizing the three (3) loading bays numbered 8, 9, and 10? This plan (aerial) view does not appear to show sufficient pavement for a semi to back into those stalls. 9. Action Item 8: The Architectural Planset shall be updated to concur with the Quam Engineering plan set, as there are differences in parking lot location, parking stall quantity, and other features (‘seven (7) loading bays’ to ‘ten (10) loading bays’). Plan Set 2026-02-06 (the Site Plan) This site plan was reviewed against the requirements of §415-93 Site Plan Approval & the Site Plan checklist per §215-11(5) Stormwater Management Plan Requirements. Email correspondence regarding these items occurred January 16, 2026. Comments below are arranged based upon the sheet within the planset. Sheet C-1 Existing Site Plan Comment: This is an existing industrial site, with residences north of the property and open lands to the west. Per DCI Map and FEMA NFHL, the site is neither regulatory floodway nor floodplain. DCIMap does identify the site as an “internally drained area,” with stormwater comments appearing below. Comment: This sheet points out items which existing condition items are to be changed (such as driveways) or removed, such as lighting or a 15” CMP culvert in road ROW. 10. Action Item 9: Work (repair or replacement) in Village Right-of-Way (ROW) shall be approved by the Village. Sheet C-2 Preliminary Proposed Site Plan Comment: This planset shows ten (10) parking stalls along the eastern edge of the proposed building. (See Action Item 8) Question: How far is it anticipated that the ramp on the western elevation (façade) extends from the building? Comment: There was Village-Applicant correspondence in December 2025-January 2026 regarding access, specifically driveways. For reference: Per §201-2(A), “a maximum of 30 feet at the property line […] and a maximum of 35 feet at the roadway for […] all other properties.” Per §201-2(C), “No more than two driveway entrances and approaches shall be constructed for any lot or premises except where deemed necessary and feasible without the impairment of safety, convenience and utility of the street by the Village Board.” Plastic Ingenuity proposes three (3) total driveways: the existing driveway off Industrial Drive; the existing driveway off Hudson St. in the center (with realignment); and one (1) new driveway in the western extents of the property. Per a January 5, 2026 email with Aaron Falkovsky of Quam Engineering: February 18, 2026 Page 5 of 6 “The proposed [new western] driveway dimensions are 68ft at the property line and 151ft at the roadway, which allow a semi to make the turn east onto Hudson without crossing the centerline.” 11. Action Item 10: The Plastic Ingenuity team shall provide an exhibit documenting the total impervious area of the site (existing; plus new building and pavement areas) to the Village Engineer & Village Staff. 12. Action Item 11: Plan Commission recommends and Village Board approves that : The Plastic Ingenuity request for three (3) total driveways, instead of two (2) per §201- 2(C), with The third driveway closest to western lot line, possessing dimensions 68ft at the property line and 151ft at the roadway, exceeding the standards per §201-2(A), Are acceptable in the name of site accessibility and roadway safety. 13. Action Item 12: Per discussions between Village Engineer Christian Reid, PE and Village Administrator Curt Erickson, increased truck traffic on Hudson Road affects the pavement. As a result, Asphalt surface testing shall be performed by Plastic Ingenuity from Industrial Drive to the proposed new western driveway. If pavement repair/replacement is necessary, it shall be performed per Village standards at Plastic Ingenuity’s expense. Finally, Truck traffic shall not exit the facility and head west onto Town roads. Truck traffic shall go to the east (right) onto Village roads. Sheet C-3 Preliminary Grading Plan Comment: Please view Action Item 14 for Sheet C-6. Sheet C-4 Preliminary Utility Plan Comment: The proposed 280ft x 800 ft building has an estimated roof surface area of +-224,208 sq. ft [ 2 roof planes * (140.13ft edge x 800ft length). The western roof plane drains to the new 2026 Infiltration Basin, while the eastern roof plane drains to the relocated West Sediment Basin s. New paved areas represent additional impervious area affecting stormwater volumes. Question: What are the surface areas / volumes for the two (2) relocated west sediment basins, the relocated west infiltration basin, and the 2026 Infiltration Basin? Is there a reason no new sedimentation basin is (identified) on the western side of the proposed building? Question: What size water and sanitary lines are necessary to service the new building? Will the new building be sprinklered? Where services are to be expanded/provided, Action Item 2 shall apply. 14. Action Item 13: The Plastic Ingenuity team shall clarify designs, specifications, and construction for utilities as well as the stormwater management system to the satisfaction of the Village Engineer and Village Public Works Director. The Stormwater Management system shall meet all applicable Village of Mazomanie, Dane County, and Wisconsin DNR standards. Sheet C-5 Building Addition Storm Sewer Plan February 18, 2026 Page 6 of 6 Comment: Please see previous sheet for comments and action items. Sheet C-6 Details 15. Action Item 14: The construction and maintenance of Erosion Control measures shall be in accordance with Wisconsin DNR and Dane County requirements. Sheet C-7 Preliminary Proposed Landscaping Plan Comment: Autumn Brilliance Maple can have salt tolerance issues, so care should be taken with how close they are planted to the property line (and thus Hudson Road) while not infringing on contoured areas flowing to stormwater facilities. 16. Action Item 15: Landscaping shall not infringe upon safe sightlines for vehicles accessing the site or Hudson Road. The Landscaping plan planting selections as proposed are acceptable and shall be implemented as presented. Recommendation The Plan Commission may consider: • Conditional approval of the site plan, plus • Recommendation to the Village Board I will attend the Monday February 23, 2026 Plan Commission and February 24, 2026 Village Board meeting to answer any questions. Sincerely, Matthew G. Miller, AICP, CNU-A Vierbicher Enclosure: 2026-02-23 Plan Commission_Plastic Ingenuity Site Plan_Possible Motion Language Cc: Village Board Angie Volkman, Village Clerk Curt Erickson, Village Administrator Chris Statz, PW Director William S. Cole, Village Attorney, Axley Brynelson LLP Plastic Ingenuity, Attn: Troy Stoenner Aaron Falkosky, PE, Quam Engineering John Hentrich, Ideal Builders, Senior Project Manager Tracy Johnson, Building Inspector Christian Reid, PE, Town & Country Engineering Inc. Andrew R. Kurtz, Planning and Community Development Manager, Vierbicher M:\Mazomanie, Village of\250934 - 2025-2026 Development Reviews\001 - Plastic Ingenuity\Reviews\2026-02-16_Plastic Ingenuity Site Plan Review Ltr.docx 6264 Nesbitt Road ∙ Madison, Wisconsin 53719 ∙ (608) 273-3350 ∙ www.tcengineers.net Madison  Rhinelander  Kenosha  Platteville February 23, 2026 Mr. Curt Erickson, Village Administrator Village of Mazomanie 133 Crescent Street, P.O. Box 26 Mazomanie, WI 53560 Subject: Plastic Ingenuity 2026 Expansion – Site Pl an Review Dear Curt: We have received the site plan for a proposed warehouse expansion for Plastic Ingenuity located at 20 Industrial Drive dated February 6, 2026, and completed our review relative to the infrastructure and engineering aspects of the proje ct. We understand a parallel review is being completed by Matt Miller, Village Planner, covering zoning aspects of the site. We have consolidated our comments with Village staff, and recommend approval of the plans conditioned upon the following items: Sheet C-1 The new expansion will require removal of the commu nity gardens facility that is located on the Plastic Ingenuity property. That site is currently served by a 1-inch water lateral that will need to be abandoned at the corporation stop of the water main. The existing meter pit will also need to be abandoned and the meter returned to the Village. Sheet C-2 It is not clear how/if the new expansion will receive sewer and water service. The fire chief should be consulted about requirements related to fire hydrant proximity to the new expansion. A number of existing private stormwater management features will need to be relocated for this project. All changes to existing features and the s izing of new features will need to comply with the Village, Dane County, and DNR requirements. Full approvals from those agencies should be provided before commencing work. It is also not clear how the connections to Hudson Street will be accomplished. Detailed elevations of the driveway and road connection should be included in all successive submittals. Page 2 Sheet C-3 A new fire hydrant and connection is shown near the existing main driveway to Hudson Street but not labelled. If this is proposed, an isolation va lve will be needed near the main connection and a minimum 10-foot long/full-width pavement patch pr ovided. The connection will need to be further evaluated once the roadway connection details are provided. General An updated stormwater management maintenance affidavit will be needed to cover the relocated and new stormwater features. I plan on attending the upcoming plan commission me eting to address any questions that may arise, but please also feel free to call regarding these comments. Very truly yours, TOWN & COUNTRY ENGINEERING, INC. Christian J. Reid, P.E. cc: Mr. Chris Statz, Public Works Director, Village of Mazomanie (via email) Mr. William Cole, Village Attorney, Axley Brynelson (via email) Mr. Matt Miller, Village Planner, Vierbicher (via email) Mr. John Hentrich, Senior Project Manager, Ideal Builders (via email Mr. Aaron Falkosky, Quam Engineering (via email) J:\JOB#S\Mazomanie\MZ-146-M6 2026 Plastic Ingenuity Expansion Review\1. Admin and PM\2026 Expansion Re view Letter 1.docx Residential and Commercial Site Design Consultants Residential and Commercial Site Design Consultants Residential and Commercial Site Design Consultants Residential and Commercial Site Design Consultants Residential and Commercial Site Design Consultants Residential and Commercial Site Design Consultants ···· 1.6.7.2.5.4. 8.3. ············ Residential and Commercial Site Design Consultants LEVEL INFORMATION A. 222,472 GSF B. PARKING STALLS: 15 TOTAL a. STANDARD: 12 b. VAN ACCESSIBLE: 2 c. ACCESSIBLE: 1 C. 7 LOADING DOCK BAYS D. BUILDING MECHANICALS 0' 0' 30' 60' 1/2" 1" SCALE: 1" = 60' -0" 2501 PARMENTER STREET, SUITE 300A ○ MIDDLETON, WI 53562 ○ 608-836-7570 © SKETCHWORKS ARCHITECTURE, LLC, 2024 DESIGN PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSPLASTIC INGENUITY WAREHOUSE ADDITION SITE PLAN 1 OF 5 DATE: 02/04/2026 PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH ROTATION DN LEVEL INFORMATION A. 222,472 GSF B. PARKING STALLS: 15 TOTAL a. STANDARD: 12 b. VAN ACCESSIBLE: 2 c. ACCESSIBLE: 1 C. 7 LOADING DOCK BAYS D. BUILDING MECHANICALS 1 A B 4 C 2 2 OF 5 2 6'-2" 120'-0" 98'-0" 55'-10" 280'-0" 72'-0" 800'-0" 44'-0" 95'-0" 95'-0" 6'-0" 100'-0" 120'-0" 120'-0" 120'-0" 120'-0" 104'-0" 28'-6" 20'-8" 66'-10" 43'-5" 64'-11" 16'-8" 16'-8" 20'-11" 67'-9" 11'-4" 16'-8" 16'-8" 16'-8" 16'-8" 16'-8" 16'-8" 11'-8" 116'-0" 120'-0" 120'-0" 90'-8" 240'-0" 4 OF 5 1 4 OF 5 2 4 OF 5 3 5 OF 5 1 5 OF 5 2 5 OF 5 3 EXISTING ROOF 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 16'-8" 16'-8" 16'-8" 25'-0" 25'-0" 16'-8" 16'-8" 16'-8" 16'-8" 16'-8" 16'-8" 16'-8" 16'-8" 16'-8" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 25'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 3 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 25'-3" 25'-6" 25'-6" 25'-6" 25'-6" 25'-6" 25'-6" 25'-6" 25'-6" 25'-6" 25'-3" D E F G J K L M N Q S 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 50'-0" 72'-0" 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 872'-0" 70'-0" 70'-0" 70'-0" 70'-0" H 1'-4" 1'-4" P A B 6' -3" x 9' -2" DRIVER'S BATHROOM 9' -2" x 12' -4" DRIVER LOUNGE 5' -7" x 19' -3" CORRIDOR 11' -9" x 19' -3" OPEN OFFICE 12' -11" x 19' -3" BREAKROOM 9' -5" x 11' -7" MANAGER OFFICE 6' -5" x 10' -10" WOMENS 9' -5" x 11' -7" MANAGER OFFICE 6' -4" x 10' -7" MENS 7'-2 1/4" 13'-1 1/2" 9'-10" 6'-0" 12'-2" 12'-0" 13'-4" 8'-1" 9 10 11 12 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 10'-1 5/8" 10'-2 1/8" 7'-8" 4'-7 1/4" 8'-0 1/2" 9'-11 5/8" 10'-4 1/8" 1'-8" EIGHTEEN (18) 12"x12" LOCKERS 0' 1/4" 0' 8' 16' 32' 1/2" 1" SCALE: 1/32" = 1' -0" 2501 PARMENTER STREET, SUITE 300A ○ MIDDLETON, WI 53562 ○ 608-836-7570 © SKETCHWORKS ARCHITECTURE, LLC, 2024 DESIGN PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSPLASTIC INGENUITY WAREHOUSE ADDITION FLOOR PLAN 2 OF 5 DATE: 02/04/2026 FIRST FLOOR PLAN PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH ROTATION FIRST FLOOR - ENLARGED OFFICE PLAN 0' 1/4" 0' 1' 2' 4' 1/2" 1" 8' 2" SCALE: 1/4" = 1' -0" DN 1/2" / 1'-0" 1/2" / 1'-0" 1/2" / 1'-0" 1/2" / 1'-0" 1/2" / 1'-0" 1/2" / 1'-0" 1/2" / 1'-0" 1/2" / 1'-0" EXISTING ROOF 0' 1/4" 0' 2' 4' 8' 1/2" 1" SCALE: 1/8" = 1' -0" 2501 PARMENTER STREET, SUITE 300A ○ MIDDLETON, WI 53562 ○ 608-836-7570 © SKETCHWORKS ARCHITECTURE, LLC, 2024 DESIGN PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSPLASTIC INGENUITY WAREHOUSE ADDITION ROOF PLAN 3 OF 5 DATE: 02/04/2026 ROOF PLAN - PRESENTATION PLAN NORTH TRUE NORTH ROTATION FIRST FLOOR 100' -0" EAVE 145' -0" GRADE 96' -0" WALL PACK LIGHT METAL GUTTER SYSTEM METAL ROOF EXTERIOR DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR 4'-0" 45'-0" 6'-2 1/2" 55'-2 1/2" METAL PANEL SIDING FIRST FLOOR 100' -0" EAVE 145' -0" GRADE 96' -0" / MATCHLINE 3 4 OF 5 EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR METAL PANEL SIDING METAL GUTTER SYSTEM METAL ROOF FIRST FLOOR 100' -0" EAVE 145' -0" GRADE 96' -0" / MATCHLINE 2 4 OF 5 METAL PANEL SIDING METAL GUTTER SYSTEM METAL ROOF LOADING BAY OVERHEAD DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR LOADING BAY LEVELER W/ BUMPER PAD LOADING BAY OVERHEAD DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR CANOPY 112' -0" PRE -MADE CANOPY BY CANOPY SUPPLIER PRE -MADE CANOPY BY CANOPY SUPPLIER METAL GUTTER SYSTEM EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR METAL GUTTER SYSTEM STOREFRONT WINDOW LOADING BAY DOOR SEAL LOADING BAY LEVELER W/ BUMPER PAD LOADING BAY DOOR SEAL WALL PACK LIGHT 0' 1/4" 0' 4' 8' 16' 1/2" 1" SCALE: 1/16" = 1' -0" 2501 PARMENTER STREET, SUITE 300A ○ MIDDLETON, WI 53562 ○ 608-836-7570 © SKETCHWORKS ARCHITECTURE, LLC, 2024 DESIGN PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSPLASTIC INGENUITY WAREHOUSE ADDITION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 4 OF 5 DATE: 02/04/2026 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 NORTH ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0" 2 EAST ELEVATION 1 1/16" = 1'-0" 3 EAST ELEVATION 2 FIRST FLOOR 100' -0" EAVE 145' -0" GRADE 96' -0" METAL PANEL SIDING METAL GUTTER SYSTEM METAL ROOF EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR EXTERIOR DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR WALL PACK LIGHT FIRST FLOOR 100' -0" STOREFRONT 140' -0" EAVE 145' -0" GRADE 96' -0" / MATCHLINE 3 5 OF 5 METAL PANEL SIDING METAL GUTTER SYSTEM METAL ROOF EXTERIOR DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR STOREFRONT WINDOW STOREFRONT WINDOW STOREFRONT WINDOW STOREFRONT WINDOW STOREFRONT WINDOW STOREFRONT WINDOW STOREFRONT WINDOW STOREFRONT WINDOW EXTERIOR DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR FIRST FLOOR 100' -0" STOREFRONT 140' -0" EAVE 145' -0" GRADE 96' -0" EXISTING LOW EAVE 125' -5 1/4" / MATCHLINE 2 5 OF 5 METAL PANEL SIDING METAL GUTTER SYSTEM METAL ROOF EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR 15'X15' OVERHEAD DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR EXTERIOR STAIR EXTERIOR DOOR STOREFRONT WINDOW STOREFRONT WINDOW STOREFRONT WINDOW STOREFRONT WINDOW STOREFRONT WINDOW STOREFRONT WINDOW STOREFRONT WINDOW STOREFRONT WINDOW 0' 1/4" 0' 2' 4' 8' 1/2" 1" SCALE: 1/8" = 1' -0" 2501 PARMENTER STREET, SUITE 300A ○ MIDDLETON, WI 53562 ○ 608-836-7570 © SKETCHWORKS ARCHITECTURE, LLC, 2024 DESIGN PARTNERS DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSPLASTIC INGENUITY WAREHOUSE ADDITION EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 5 OF 5 DATE: 02/04/2026 1/16" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION 1/16" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION 1 1/16" = 1'-0" 3 WEST ELEVATION 2 ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 1 PI Mazo Warehouse 433 days Fri 7/18/25 Thu 4/1/27 2 Pre-Construction 182 days Fri 7/18/25 Mon 4/6/26 3 Concept Designing 2 wks Mon 6/30/25 Mon 7/14/25 4 PI Release Final Design 0 days Mon 12/29/25 Mon 12/29/25 5 Village of Mazomanie Plan Commission Meeting 0 days Mon 1/26/26 Mon 1/26/26 6 Village of Mazomanie Plan Commission Meeting 0 days Mon 2/16/26 Mon 2/16/26 7 Village of Mazomanie Village Board Meeting 0 days Tue 2/10/26 Tue 2/10/26 8 Village of Mazomanie Village Board Meeting 0 days Tue 3/10/26 Tue 3/10/26 9 Architectural & Structural Design 6 wks Tue 1/6/26 Mon 2/16/26 10 Preliminary Reaction and Anchor Bolt Plan 0 days Fri 1/30/26 Fri 1/30/26 11 Pre-Engineered Metal Building Shop Drawings 6 wks Tue 1/20/26 Mon 3/2/26 12 State Plan Review 6 wks Tue 2/17/26 Mon 3/30/26 13 Local Building Permit Review and Approval 1 wk Tue 3/31/26 Mon 4/6/26 14 Building Permit is Available 0 days Mon 4/6/26 Mon 4/6/26 15 Final Civil Design 6 wks Mon 12/29/25 Mon 2/9/26 16 County/DNR Approvals 4 wks Tue 2/10/26 Mon 3/9/26 17 DSPS Site Plumbing Approvals 4 wks Tue 2/10/26 Mon 3/9/26 18 Final Project Pricing 2 wks Tue 2/3/26 Mon 2/16/26 19 Contract Execution Between Ideal and PI 1 wk Tue 2/17/26 Mon 2/23/26 20 Award Suppliers/Subcontractors 1 wk Tue 2/24/26 Mon 3/2/26 21 Long Lead Procurement 85 days Mon 2/23/26 Tue 6/23/26 22 Release Long Lead Time Items 0 days Mon 2/23/26 Mon 2/23/26 23 Pre-Engineered Metal Building Fabrication 16 wks Tue 3/3/26 Tue 6/23/26 24 Doors/Frames Review 10 days Tue 2/24/26 Mon 3/9/26 25 Doors/Frames Delivery 8 wks Tue 3/10/26 Mon 5/4/26 26 Overhead Door Drawings Review 10 days Tue 2/24/26 Mon 3/9/26 27 Overhead Door Delivery 6 wks Tue 3/10/26 Mon 4/20/26 28 Windows Review 10 days Tue 2/24/26 Mon 3/9/26 29 Windows Delivery 8 wks Tue 3/10/26 Mon 5/4/26 30 Loading Dock Equipment Delivery 4 wks Tue 2/24/26 Mon 3/23/26 31 Construction 358 days Mon 11/3/25 Thu 4/1/27 32 Site Work 26 days Mon 4/13/26 Tue 5/19/26 33 Start Construction 0 days Mon 4/13/26 Mon 4/13/26 34 Site Grading/Building Prep 10 days Tue 4/14/26 Mon 4/27/26 35 Site Utilities 10 days Tue 4/28/26 Mon 5/11/26 36 Site Grading/Loading Dock Prep 3 days Tue 5/12/26 Thu 5/14/26 37 Base Coarse 3 days Fri 5/15/26 Tue 5/19/26 38 Building Shell 230 days Tue 4/28/26 Wed 3/24/27 39 Building Foundations 16 wks Tue 4/28/26 Wed 8/19/26 40 Metal Building Erection and Insulation 26 wks Thu 7/30/26 Wed 2/3/27 41 Site Concrete 10 days Thu 2/4/27 Wed 2/17/27 42 Asphalt 10 days Thu 2/4/27 Wed 2/17/27 43 Landscaping 25 days Thu 2/18/27 Wed 3/24/27 44 Floor Slabs 10 wks Tue 12/15/26 Wed 2/24/27 45 Interior Buildout 46 days Thu 1/28/27 Thu 4/1/27 46 Steels Stud/Drywall 10 days Thu 1/28/27 Wed 2/10/27 47 Overhead Doors/Loading Dock Equipment 5 days Thu 2/11/27 Wed 2/17/27 48 Aluminum Windows 5 days Thu 2/18/27 Wed 2/24/27 49 Doors/Frames/Hardware 2 days Thu 2/25/27 Fri 2/26/27 50 Painting 5 days Mon 3/1/27 Fri 3/5/27 51 Flooring 5 days Mon 3/8/27 Fri 3/12/27 52 Casework 2 days Mon 3/15/27 Tue 3/16/27 53 Finishes 10 days Mon 3/15/27 Fri 3/26/27 54 Testing & Inspections, Final Cleaning, Punchlist 3 days Mon 3/29/27 Wed 3/31/27 55 Substantial Completion 1 day Thu 4/1/27 Thu 4/1/27 PI Release Final Design Village of Mazomanie Plan Commission Meeting Village of Mazomanie Plan Commission Meeting Village of Mazomanie Village Board Meeting Village of Mazomanie Village Board Meeting Architectural & Structural Design Preliminary Reaction and Anchor Bolt Plan Pre-Engineered Metal Building Shop Drawings State Plan Review Local Building Permit Review and Approval Building Permit is Available Final Civil Design County/DNR Approvals DSPS Site Plumbing Approvals Final Project Pricing Contract Execution Between Ideal and PI Award Suppliers/Subcontractors Long Lead Procurement Release Long Lead Time Items Pre-Engineered Metal Building Fabrication Doors/Frames Review Doors/Frames Delivery Overhead Door Drawings Review Overhead Door Delivery Windows Review Windows Delivery Loading Dock Equipment Delivery Site Work Start Construction Site Grading/Building Prep Site Utilities Site Grading/Loading Dock Prep Base Coarse Building Shell Building Foundations Metal Building Erection and Insulation Site Concrete Asphalt Landscaping Floor Slabs Steels Stud/Drywall Overhead Doors/Loading Dock Equipment Aluminum Windows Doors/Frames/Hardware Painting Flooring Casework Finishes Testing & Inspections, Final Cleaning, Punchlist Substantial Completion 6 11 16 21 26 31 5 10 15 20 25 30 4 9 14 19 24 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25 30 4 9 14 19 24 29 4 9 14 19 24 29 3 8 13 18 23 28 2 7 12 17 22 27 2 7 12 17 22 27 1 6 11 16 21 26 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 5 10 15 20 25 30 4 9 14 19 24 1 6 11 16 21 26 31 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 December 2025 January 2026 February 2026 March 2026 April 2026 May 2026 June 2026 July 2026 August 2026 September 2026 October 2026 November 2026 December 2026 January 2027 February 2027 March 2027 April 2027 May 2027 PI Mazo Warehouse Addition 20 Industrial Dr. Mazomanie, WI 53560 Date: Fri 1/16/26 October 6, 2025 C25410 Mr. John Hentrich Ideal Builders, Inc. 1406 Emil Street Madison, WI 53713 Re: Geotechnical Exploration Report Plastic Ingenuity – North Expansion 20 Industrial Drive, Mazomanie, Wisconsin Dear Mr. Hentrich: Construction • Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. (CGC) has completed the subsurface exploration program for the above-referenced project. The purpose of this program was to evaluate the subsurface conditions within the proposed construction area s and to provide geotechnical recommendations regarding site preparation, foundation, floor slab, loading dock wall and pavement design/construction. Seismic site class and stormwater infiltration potential will also be discussed. An electronic copy of this report is provided for your use. PROJECT DESCRIPTION / SITE CONDITIONS We understand that Plastic Ingenuity is planning to construct a new structure just north of the existing plant in Mazomanie, Wisconsin. The structure is anticipated to consist of the construction of single- story (high bay), slab-on-grade building, with a footprint covering about 140,000 sq. ft. A potential 70,000 sq. ft., future expansion along the north end of the proposed new building may be considered in the future. Paved access drives, parking and loading docks are planned along the east and west sides of the new building . The finished floor elevation of the building is understood to be planned at EL 773.5. Stormwater management basins are generally planned beyond the proposed access drives to the east and west of the new building. Refer to the Boring & Test Pit Location Exhibit provided in Appendix B for a depiction of the proposed site layout. The topography of the subject site is relatively flat, with e xisting site grades within the proposed development area ranging between about EL 770 and 766. However, two (2) existing stormwater basins, with apparent bottom elevations around EL 757 to 758, are present near the southeast corner of the planned new building. The majority of the planned development area is comprised of grass, beyond the existing asphalt access drive and loading dock/parking area, along the north side of the existing plant. A fenced-in community garden exists within the northwest portion of the site. Based on the planned finished floor elevation in relation to existing site grades, fills on the order of about 5.5 to 7.5 ± ft are typically anticipated to achieve finished site grades within the area of the proposed building. However, fills on the order of about 1 6.5 ft are expected within the area s of the existing stormwater basins. Geotechnical Exploration Report C25410 Plastic Ingenuity – North Expansion Mazomanie, Wisconsin October 6, 2025 Page 2 S:\DOC\October 2025\25410.geo.rjp_ajb.docx SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling 8 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) soil borings and excavating three (3) test pits at locations selected by the project design team. More specifically, the borings were performed within the new building area to a depth of 15 ft below grade. As an exception, Boring 8 was completed in the area of a proposed stormwater management system. The test pits were performed to the planned depth of 12 ft. The boring and test pit locations were staked in the field by CGC utilizing conventional taping procedures referenced to existing site features . The ground surface elevations at each location were estimated by CGC from the provided topographic site plan prepared by Quam Engineering . The borings were drilled by America’s Drilling Company ( under subcontract to CGC) on September 24, 2025 using a Geoprobe rotary drill rig equipped with hollow -stem augers and an automatic SPT hammer. The specific procedures used for drilling and sampling are described in Appendix A. The test pits were excavated by Hellenbrand Bros. Excavating (under subcontract to CGC) and logged by CGC on September 17, 2025. The approximate boring and test pit locations are shown in plan on the Boring & Test Pit Location Exhibit attached in Appendix B. The subsurface profile at the boring and test pit locations were similar and can generally be described by the following strata (in descending order): • Approximately 3 to 18± in. of sandy topsoil/topsoil fill; underlain by • Very l oose to medium dense , native sand with varying silt and gravel contents, extending to the maximum depths explored. It is important to note the near surface sand soils immediately below the surficial black sandy topsoil were typically dark brown in color and contained appreciable silt contents, but minimal organic matter. Distinguishing between topsoil and underlying inorganic dark sand soils during topsoil stripping will therefore likely be difficult. Additionally, dark brown sand fill was encountered to depths of about 3 and 1.5± ft at Borings 1 and 2. Representative samples of the relatively dark, native sand strata encountered below the surficial topsoil and/or fill at Borings 2, 4 and 5 were tested for their natural moisture and organic contents in our laboratory. Moisture contents were determined to range between about 9.3 and 11.9%, with associated organic contents varying between about 1.9 and 2.3% . For reference, soil containing less than 4% organic matter are typically considered inorganic or slightly organic. Two (2) samples from the test pits were subjected to sieve analysis (gradation) testing to aid in their USDA classification. The results of the gradations are presented in the Particle Size Distribution Reports enclosed in Appendix E. Geotechnical Exploration Report C25410 Plastic Ingenuity – North Expansion Mazomanie, Wisconsin October 6, 2025 Page 3 S:\DOC\October 2025\25410.geo.rjp_ajb.docx Groundwater was not encountered in the borings or test pits during or immediately after completion. As an exception, apparent groundwater was noted in Boring 2 below a depth of about 14 ft (EL 749±) during drilling. Groundwater levels are expected to fluctuate with seasonal variations in precipitation, infiltration, evapotranspiration and other factors . A more detailed description of the site soil and groundwater conditions is presented in Appendix B on the Soil Boring Logs and in Appendix E on the Wisconsin Department of Safety & Professional Services Soil and Site Evaluation – Storm forms for the test pits and designated stormwater boring (B-8). DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Subject to the limitations discussed below and based on the subsurface exploration, it is our opinion that the site is suitable for the proposed construction and that the proposed structure can be supported by conventional spread footing foundations bearing on natural sand soils and/or properly placed and compacted granular structural fill . However, moisture conditioning, recompaction and/or undercutting/replacement of very loose to loose sand , where present, will likely be required prior to structural fill placement and/or below foundations . Furthermore, in view of the amount of fill anticipated to raise site grades in some areas, it is imperative that structural fill soils are properly placed and compacted early in the development of the site, as outlined in the following Site Preparation section. Our recommendations for site preparation, foundation, floor slab, loading dock wall and pavement design/construction are presented in the following subsections. Seismic site class and stormwater infiltration potential are also discussed. Additional information regarding the conclusions and recommendations presented in this report is discussed in Appendix C. 1. Site Preparation We recommend that the topsoil be stripped/removed at least 10 ft beyond the proposed construction areas, including areas required for cuts and fills beyond the proposed building footprints and pavement areas. The topsoil can be stockpiled on-site and re-used as fill in landscaped areas. As noted previously, topsoil thicknesses of about 3 to 18± in. were encountered in the borings and test pits , but variable topsoil thicknesses should be expected between and beyond boring/test pit locations. As stated earlier, the relatively dark sand underlying the surficial topsoil appears to be inorganic and does not need to be stripped prior to fill placement. However, differentiating between the surficial organic topsoil and the underlying inorganic, dark sand will require a trained eye during site stripping. Trees and tree roots should be removed in conjunction with topsoil stripping. Care should also be exercised when removing organic soils, engineered soils, or accumulated silt/fines from within the existing stormwater facilities in the southeast. Following clearing, grubbing and topsoil removal, the exposed subgrades are generally expected to consist of natural sand soils with varying silt and gravel contents. In general, the silt content of the sand soils typically decreased with depth on this site. Exposed sand soils in areas to receive fill should be thoroughly compacted with a smooth drum vibratory roller . Where loose / yielding areas are identified which cannot be adequately densified through compaction, the areas should be undercut and Geotechnical Exploration Report C25410 Plastic Ingenuity – North Expansion Mazomanie, Wisconsin October 6, 2025 Page 4 S:\DOC\October 2025\25410.geo.rjp_ajb.docx replaced with granular backfill compacted to at least 95% compaction based on modified Proctor methods (ASTM D1557) in accordance with our Recommended Compacted Fill Specifications presented in Appendix D. Alternatively, 3 -in. dense graded base (DGB) that is placed in loose 10-in. lifts and compacted until deflection ceases can also be used to restore grades in undercut areas. Note that discing or scarifying of relatively wet siltier sand soils, if encountered, should be considered to promote drying of the materials and potentially reduce (but not necessarily eliminate) the amount of undercutting. Fill placement to establish site grades can proceed following the development of a firm, stable subgrade. Given the amount of fill required to achieve site grades, we recommend that fill placement to the design slab subgrade elevation occur early in the development. To the extent possible, we recommend using granular soils (i.e., sands/gravels) as structural fill, because these soils are relatively easy to properly place and compact in most weather conditions compared to clay/silt soils. Note that the on-site sand soils (SM , SP-SM and SP on the logs) are considered adequate for use as structural fill/backfill, provided moisture contents are near the optimum moisture contents in order to facilitate adequate compaction during placement. The addition of water to the cleaner sand soils (denoted as SP and SP-SM on the boring logs) will likely be required to aid in achieving adequate compaction levels. We recommend that structural fill be compacted to at least 95% compaction based on modified Proctor methods (ASTM D1557) following Appendix D guidelines. Periodic field density tests should be taken by CGC staff within the fill to document the adequacy of compactive effort. Excavation work should proceed in accordance with OSHA slope guidelines. The cleaner sand soils (SP to SP-SM on the borings logs) encountered on the site are generally classified as OSHA “Type C” soils, and excavation slopes of 1.5H:1V are expected to be temporarily stable. Appropriate excavation slopes should be determined by a competent person completing the earthwork. 2. Foundation Design In our opinion, the proposed structures can be supported on reinforced concrete spread footing foundations bearing on the native sand soils and/or structural fill used to achieve site grades . The recommended allowable bearing pressure is controlled by the very loose to loose conditions encountered in several of the borings below foundation elevations. Isolated undercutting/replacement may be required where very loose sand soils remain following recompaction. Provided the recommendations regarding foundation subgrade preparation and evaluation outlined below are followed, the following parameters should be used for foundation design: • Maximum allowable bearing pressure: 2,000 psf • Minimum foundation widths: -- Continuous wall footings: 18 in. -- Column pad footings: 30 in. Geotechnical Exploration Report C25410 Plastic Ingenuity – North Expansion Mazomanie, Wisconsin October 6, 2025 Page 5 S:\DOC\October 2025\25410.geo.rjp_ajb.docx • Minimum footing depths: -- Exterior/perimeter footings: 4 ft -- Interior footings: no minimum requirement We recommend using a smooth-edged backhoe bucket for footing excavation. Given the prevalent very loose to loose conditions encountered in several of the borings, footing subgrades must be rigorously compacted with an excavator-mounted vibratory compactor (i.e., hoe-pak) or large vibratory smooth drum roller to densify the subg rade soils. The addition of water to the subgrades (prior to applying compactive effort) may be required to aid in compaction of the cleaner sands (i.e., SP and SP-SM soils shown on the logs). Recompacted subgrades should be carefully evaluated by CGC. Subgrades that are not adequately densified should be removed to a depth of 2 ft below design footing grade, the base of the undercut moistened and thoroughly compacted until no deflection is noted, and then the undercut backfilled with the previously removed sand soils. The sand backfill should be placed in 8 to 12 in. lifts and compacted with a large vibratory plate compactor or hoe -pak (backhoe mounted compactor) to a minimum of 95% of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557. The base of undercut excavations should be widened beyond the footing edges at least 0.5 ft in each direction for each foot of undercut depth for stress distribution purposes. As an alternative to reusing sand soils, 3-in. dense grade base (DGB) could be placed and compacted to restore footing grade in undercut areas. CGC staff should be present during footing excavations to check that adequate bearing conditions exist and during backfilling to check compaction levels. Provided the foundation design/construction recommendations discussed above are followed, we estimate that total and differential settlements should not exceed 1.0 and 0.5 in., respectively. 3. Floor Slabs In our opinion, the floor slab can be supported on the native sand or newly placed/compacted fill used to achieve design grades, where necessary . Prior to slab construction, slab subgrades should be compacted or recompacted, as described in the Site Preparation section of this report, and stabilized as needed with 3-in. DGB or replaced with compacted granular fill. To act as a bedding layer below the slab, we recommend including a minimum 6 -in. thick layer of dense graded base (DGB), such as 1¼-in. DGB, immediately below the slab. To reduce the potential for moisture migration through the slab, a vapor barrier can also be utilized. Fill and base layer material below the floor slab should be placed as described in the Site Preparation section of this report. Slabs constructed on a minimum 6 -in. thick DGB layer may be designed utilizing a subgrade modulus of 150 pci. The design subgrade modulus is based on a firm or adequately stabilized, recompacted subgrade such that non-yielding conditions are developed. loor slabs should be structurally separated from footings with a compressible filler and have construction joi nts and reinforcement for crack control. Geotechnical Exploration Report C25410 Plastic Ingenuity – North Expansion Mazomanie, Wisconsin October 6, 2025 Page 6 S:\DOC\October 2025\25410.geo.rjp_ajb.docx 4. Seismic Site Class In our opinion, the average soil/rock properties in the upper 100 ft of the site (based on predominantly loose to medium dense sands encountered in the borings and estimated SPT blow counts generally increasing with depth) may be characterized as a stiff soil profile. This characterization would place the site in Site Class D for seismic design according to the International Building Code and ASCE 7. 5. Loading Dock and Site Retaining Walls We anticipate that the exterior building wall in loading dock area s will be laterally restrained from rotating by the floor slab. Therefore, at-rest lateral earth pressures resulting from the wall backfill (below the floor slab) should be used during design of these walls. Walls that are not restrained from rotating (such as exterior site retaining walls, including retaining walls along the sides of exterior loading dock ramps) can be designed for active earth pressures behind the walls and passive pressures in front of the walls. To reduce the buildup of such pressures, high -quality backfill should be placed within 4 to 6 ft of the walls, consisting of well -graded sand or gravel having no more than 12% by weight passing the No. 200 U.S. standard sieve (i.e., USCS designations SP, SP-SM, GP or GP-GM). Soils containing cobbles/boulders should not be used in direct contact with loading dock or other site retaining walls. Weepholes should be placed near the base of exterior site retaining walls (if planned) on 10-ft centers to provide drainage of the wall backfill. The weepholes should be hydraulically connected with the backfill and should be protected with a non-woven geotextile fabric to minimize soil loss through the weepholes. The wall designer may have other and/or additional drainage requirements. Compaction of the backfill within 3 to 5 ft of the walls should be performed with lightweight equipment to avoid the development of excessive lateral earth pressures. The backfill should generally be compacted to a minimum of 93% modified Proctor followin g Appendix C guidelines, but a minimum 95% compaction is recommended where footings, floor slabs or pavement will bear on the wall backfill. Loading dock walls restrained from rotating and constructed in accordance with the previous recommendations may be designed for an equivalent fluid pressure of 55 psf per ft of depth (drained, at-rest conditions). Walls not restrained from rotating constructed in accordance with the above recommendations may be designed for an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 psf per ft of depth behind the walls, and passive pressures on the order of 200 psf per ft of depth in front of the walls, also assuming drained conditions. The passive pressure value includes a safety factor of 2 to prevent excessive wall deflection. Add itionally, the wall design should also account for surcharge effects that could be applied during or after construction. We recommend using an ultimate concrete-to-soil friction factor of 0.4 for retaining wall footings bearing on compacted sand. Retaining wall footing subgrades should be evaluated and prepared as discussed in the Building Foundations section. Geotechnical Exploration Report C25410 Plastic Ingenuity – North Expansion Mazomanie, Wisconsin October 6, 2025 Page 7 S:\DOC\October 2025\25410.geo.rjp_ajb.docx 6. Pavement Design Subgrade soils within planned parking and drive areas are generally expected to consist of native sand soils and compacted granular fill used to achieve site grades . Pavement subgrades should be re - compacted (and moistened where subgrades are comprised of relatively dry, clean sands), as described in the Site Preparation section of this report, and stabilized as needed with compacted coarse stone or replaced with compacted granular fill. We expect that the new 15-stall asphalt parking lot planned along the east side of the new building will be exposed to automobile traffic, with less than one 18-kip equivalent single axle load (ESAL) assumed per day. In view of this, we have assumed Traffic Class I following Wisconsin Asphalt Pavement Association (WAPA) recommendations for the small parking area. However, for the main access drives and loading dock areas where tractor-trailer traffic will be experienced, we have assumed Traffic Class III according to WAPA. The pavement sections summarized in Table 1 below were selected assuming a Soil Support Value “SSV” of about 4.0 for a firm or adequately stabilized sand subgrade and a design life of 20 years. TABLE 1 Recommended Pavement Sections Material Thicknesses (in.) WisDOT Specification (1) Traffic Class I (Light Duty) Traffic Class III (Heavy Duty) Bituminous Upper Layer (2,3) 1.75 2.0 Section 460, Table 460-1 Bituminous Lower Layer (2,3) 1.75 2.5 Section 460. Table 460-1 Dense Graded Base Course (2,3) 8.0 12.0 Sections 301 and 305, 3 in. and 1¼ in. Total Thickness 11.5 16.5 Notes: 1) Wisconsin DOT Standard Specifications for Highway and Structure Construction, latest edition, including supplemental specifications, and Wisconsin Asphalt Pavement Association 2021 Asphalt Pavement Design Guide. 2) Compaction requirements: - Bituminous concrete: Refer to Section 460-3. - Base course: Refer to Section 301.3.4.2, Standard Compaction Geotechnical Exploration Report C25410 Plastic Ingenuity – North Expansion Mazomanie, Wisconsin October 6, 2025 Page 8 S:\DOC\October 2025\25410.geo.rjp_ajb.docx 3) Mixture Type LT bituminous; refer to Section 460, Table 460 -2 of the Standard Specifications. Note that a 5LT mix should not be utilized, as settlement and/or shoving of the pavement surface may occur under turning and/or parked vehicles, especially during summer months. 4) The upper 4 in. should consist of 1¼ -in. DGB; the bottom part of the layer can consist of 3-in. DGB. The recommended pavement sections assume regular maintenance (crack sealing, etc.) will occur, as needed. Note that if traffic volumes are greater than those assumed, CGC should be allowed to review the recommended pavement sections and adjust them accordingly. Alternative pavement designs may prove acceptable and should be reviewed by CGC. Where concrete pavement may be used, such as in pavement areas subjected to concentrated wheel loads (e.g., dumpster pads, etc.), we recommend that the concrete pavement be at least 6 -in. thick, be underlain by at least 6 in. of DGB and contain reinforcement for crack control. Concrete slabs underlain by a minimum 6-in. thick dense graded base layer over a firm or stabilized subgrade can be designed utilizing a subgrade modulus of 150 pci. Note that a thicker pavement section (more than 6 in. of concrete) may be required at dolly pads or truck aprons, depending on anticipated pavement loads, which should be evaluated by a structural engineer. 7. Stormwater Infiltration Potential Test Pits 1 through 3 and Boring 8 were requested and performed in the area of proposed stormwater management systems. The subsurface profiles encountered below the surficial topsoil in the test pits (and boring) were generally similar, and they consisted of granular soils comprised of sandy loam, gravelly sandy loam, gravelly loamy sand, fine sand, sand, and/or gravelly sand, extending to the test pit termination depths. As an exception, a relatively thin stratum of silt loam was noted below the surficial topsoil in TP-1. Groundwater was not noted within the test pits (or stormwater boring) above the depths explored . In our opinion, the subsurface conditions encountered in the test pits (and associated borings) generally appear well suited for infiltrating stormwater. Infiltration Potential: The following is a summary of the estimated infiltration rates for the soils encountered in the test pits and Boring 8 , per Table 2 of the WDNR Conservation Practice Standard 1002, Site Evaluation for Storm Water Infiltration . The estimated infiltration rates are as follows: • Silt loam (SIL) 0.13 in./hr • Sandy loam (SL) 0.50 in./hr • Gravelly sandy loam (GRSL) 0.50 in./hr • Fine sand (FS) 0.50 in./hr • Gravelly loamy sand (GRLS) 1.63 in./hr Geotechnical Exploration Report C25410 Plastic Ingenuity – North Expansion Mazomanie, Wisconsin October 6, 2025 Page 9 S:\DOC\October 2025\25410.geo.rjp_ajb.docx • Sand (S) 3.60 in./hr • Gravelly sand (GRS) 3.60 in./hr Note that the infiltration rates should be considered very approximate since they are merely based on soil texture and do not account for in -place soil density and other factors, which will affect the infiltration rate. We recommend that the soils at and several feet below the bottom of stormwater management system be checked by a certified soil tester in conjunction with the basin designer to document that the soils are appropriate for the design infiltration rate or recommend remedial measures, if necessary. Variability in the soil conditions should be expected across the site, which could result in a wide range of undercut depths to reach soil suitable for the design infiltration rate. The Wisconsin Department of Safety & Professional Services Soil and Site Evaluation – Storm forms for the test pits (and designated stormwater boring) are contained in Appendix E. Groundwater: Groundwater was not encountered in the stormwater test pits or boring above the depths explored . However, seasonal fluctuations in the groundwater level should be expected on this site. Bedrock: Bedrock was not encountered in the test pits or borings above the depths explored. During construction, appropriate erosion control should be provided to prevent eroded soil from contaminating the stormwater management areas. Where appropriate, the stormwater system design should include pretreatment to remove fine -grained soils (silt/c lay) and clogging materials (oils/greases) from stormwater prior to entering the infiltration areas. Additionally, a regular maintenance plan should be developed to remove silt/clay soils and clogging materials that may accumulate in the bottom of the stormwater management areas over time. Failure to adequately control fine-grained soils and clogging materials from entering the infiltration areas or failure to regularly remove fine -grained soils and clogging materials that accumulate at the base of the st ormwater infiltration systems will likely cause the stormwater management systems to fail. Additionally, it is important that the soils in the bottom of the infiltration systems do not become compacted during construction or measures are taken to mitigate soils that are compacted during construction. Refer to WDNR Conservation Practice Standards 1002, 1003 and 1004, as well as NR151 for additional information. CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS Due to variations in weather, construction methods and other factors, specific construction problems are difficult to predict. Soil related difficulties which could be encountered on the site are discussed below: Geotechnical Exploration Report C25410 Plastic Ingenuity – North Expansion Mazomanie, Wisconsin October 6, 2025 Page 10 S:\DOC\October 2025\25410.geo.rjp_ajb.docx • We recommend that final site grading activities be completed during dry weather, if possible. Construction traffic should be avoided on prepared subgrades to m inimize potential disturbance. • Earthwork construction during the early spring or late fall could be complicated as a result of wet weather and freezing temperatures. During cold weather, exposed subgrades should be protected from freezing before and after footing construction. Fill should never be placed while frozen or on frozen ground. • Excavations extending greater than 4 ft in depth below the existing ground surface should be sloped or braced in accordance with current OSHA standards. RECOMMENDED CONSTRUCTION MONITORING The quality of the foundation , floor slab and pavement subgrades will be largely determined by the level of care exercised during site development. To check that earthwork and foundation construction proceeds in accordance with our recommendations, the following operations should be monitored by CGC: • Topsoil stripping/subgrade proof-rolling within the construction areas; • Fill/backfill placement and compaction; • Foundation excavation/subgrade preparation; and • Concrete placement. * * * * * Geotechnical Exploration Report C25410 Plastic Ingenuity – North Expansion Mazomanie, Wisconsin October 6, 2025 Page 11 S:\DOC\October 2025\25410.geo.rjp_ajb.docx It has been a pleasure to serve you on this project. If you have any questions or need additional consultation, please contact us. Sincerely, CGC, Inc. Ryan J. Portman, P.E., CST Senior Consulting Professional Alex J. Bina, P.E., CST Consulting Engineer Encl: Appendix A - Field Exploration Appendix B - Boring & Test Pit Location Exhibit Logs of Test Borings (8) Log of Test Boring-General Notes Unified Soil Classification System Appendix C - Document Qualifications Appendix D - Recommended Compacted Fill Specifications Appendix E - WDSPS Soil and Site Evaluation – Storm Forms Particle Size Distribution Reports APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION APPENDIX A FIELD EXPLORATION Subsurface conditions were explored by drilling 8 Standard Penetration Test (SPT) soil borings at locations selected by the project design team. In each boring, soil samples were obtained at 2.5-foot intervals to a depth of 10 ft and at 5-ft intervals thereafter. As an exception, Boring 8 was sampled at 2.5-ft intervals to the termination depth of 16 ft. The soil samples were obtained in general accordance with specifications for standard penetration testing, ASTM D 1586. The specific procedures used for drilling and sampling are described below. 1. Boring Procedures between Samples The boring is extended downward, between samples, by a hollow-stem auger. 2. Standard Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils (ASTM Designation: D 1586) This method consists of driving a 2 -inch outside diameter split -barrel sampler using a 140 - pound weight falling freely through a distance of 30 inches. The sampler is first seated 6 inches into the material to be sampled and then driven 12 inches. The nu mber of blows required to drive the sampler the final 12 inches is recorded on the log of borings and is known as the Standard Penetration Resistance. During the field exploration, the driller visually classified the soil and prepared a field log. Field screening of the soil samples for possible environmental contaminants was not conducted by the drillers as these services were not part of CGC’s work scope. Water level observations were made in each boring during and after drilling and are shown at the bottom of each boring log. Upon completion of drilling, the borings were backfilled with bentonite (where required) to satisfy WDNR regulations and the soil samples were delivered to our laboratory for visual classification. The soils were visually classified by a geotechnical engineer using the Unified Soil Classification System. In addition to the soil borings, three (3) test pits were excavated within the planned/possible stormwater management areas. The excavations were logged (using the USDA classification system) in the field by CGC and subsequently backfilled with excavation spoils placed in lifts and tamped with t he excavator bucket. The final boring logs, including laboratory test results, along with a Boring & Test Pit Location Exhibit and a description of the Unified Soil Classification System are presented in Appendix B. The WDSPS Soil and Site Evaluation – Storm forms for the stormwater test pits and boring are attached in Appendix E. APPENDIX B BORING & TEST PIT LOCATION EXHIBIT LOGS OF TEST BORINGS (8) LOG OF TEST BORING-GENERAL NOTES UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Date: 10/2025 BORING & TEST PIT LOCATION EXHIBIT Plastic Ingenuity – North Expansion Mazomanie, WisconsinJob No. C25410 Notes 1. Soil borings performed by ADC on September 24, 2025. Test pits excavated by HBE on September 17, 2025. 2. Boring and test pit locations shown are approximate. 3. Base map was provided by Quam Engineering. TP-1 TP-2 TP-3 B-4 B-1 B-2 B-3 B-5 B-6 B-7 B-8 Soil Boring Location Test Pit Location 84912 16 661410 12 3± in. TOPSOIL Fill7± in. Base Course FillFILL: Dark Brown Fine to Medium Sand, SomeSilt, Little GravelVery Loose, Dark Reddish-Brown Fine to MediumSAND, Some Silt, Little Gravel (SM)Loose to Medium Dense, Tan Fine to CoarseSAND, Little to Trace Gravel, Trace Silt (SP) End of Boring at 15 ftBorehole Backfilled with Bentonite Chips 1234 5 MMMM M 7822DT SOIL PROPERTIES 2.25" HSA; Autohammer (qa)SAMPLE soil types and the transition may be gradual.Chief Boring No.LOG OF TEST BORING (in.) 9/24/25 5 10 15 20NW 11.5' P (608) 288-4100, FAX (608) 288-7887NDepthNo. qu Start T WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONSRJPDepth to Cave in Plastic Ingenuity North ExpansionC25410 E Drill Method PL The stratification lines represent theSKLoggerNW Mazomanie, WIB-1 (tsf)Moist 20 Industrial Drive Editor9/24/25Depth to WaterGENERAL NOTESTime After Drilling15 Mins.Rig and RemarksSheet of approximate boundary between ProjectSurface Elevation (ft)1 1 CJ (ft) Driller Rec W 765.5± EndADC Y LL Location While DrillingUpon Completion of Drilling 2921 Perry Street, Madison, WI 53713VISUAL CLASSIFICATIONJob No. LOI 15121112 11 1.916141314 15 4± in. TOPSOILFILL: Dark Brown Fine to Medium Sand, SomeSilt, Little GravelMedium Dense, Very Dark Brown Silty SAND,Trace Organics (SM)Medium Dense, Tan Fine to Medium SAND, TraceSilt and Gravel (SP)Medium Dense, Tan Fine to Coarse SAND, Littleto Trace Gravel, Trace Silt (SP) End of Boring at 15 ftBorehole Backfilled with Bentonite Chips 1234 5 MMMM M/W 9.3 7822DT SOIL PROPERTIES 2.25" HSA; Autohammer (qa)SAMPLE soil types and the transition may be gradual.Chief Boring No.LOG OF TEST BORING (in.) 9/24/25 5 10 15 2014.0' 11' P (608) 288-4100, FAX (608) 288-7887NDepthNo. qu Start T WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONSRJPDepth to Cave in Plastic Ingenuity North ExpansionC25410 E Drill Method PL The stratification lines represent theSKLoggerNW Mazomanie, WIB-2 (tsf)Moist 20 Industrial Drive Editor9/24/25Depth to WaterGENERAL NOTESTime After Drilling15 Mins.Rig and RemarksSheet of approximate boundary between ProjectSurface Elevation (ft)1 1 CJ (ft) Driller Rec W 763± EndADC Y LL Location While DrillingUpon Completion of Drilling 2921 Perry Street, Madison, WI 53713VISUAL CLASSIFICATIONJob No. LOI 16231611 13 13141615 13 7± in. TOPSOILMedium Dense, Dark Reddish-Brown Fine toMedium SAND, Some Silt, Little Gravel (SM)Medium Dense, Tan Fine to Coarse SAND, Littleto Trace Gravel, Trace Silt (SP)Medium Dense, Tan Fine SAND, Trace Silt (SP)Medium Dense, Tan Fine to Medium SAND, TraceSilt and Gravel (SP) Medium Dense, Tan Fine to Coarse SAND, SomeGravel, Trace Silt (SP)End of Boring at 15 ftBorehole Backfilled with Bentonite Chips 1234 5 MMMM M 7822DT SOIL PROPERTIES 2.25" HSA; Autohammer (qa)SAMPLE soil types and the transition may be gradual.Chief Boring No.LOG OF TEST BORING (in.) 9/24/25 5 10 15 20NW 12.5' P (608) 288-4100, FAX (608) 288-7887NDepthNo. qu Start T WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONSRJPDepth to Cave in Plastic Ingenuity North ExpansionC25410 E Drill Method PL The stratification lines represent theSKLoggerNW Mazomanie, WIB-3 (tsf)Moist 20 Industrial Drive Editor9/24/25Depth to WaterGENERAL NOTESTime After Drilling15 Mins.Rig and RemarksSheet of approximate boundary between ProjectSurface Elevation (ft)1 1 CJ (ft) Driller Rec W 768± EndADC Y LL Location While DrillingUpon Completion of Drilling 2921 Perry Street, Madison, WI 53713VISUAL CLASSIFICATIONJob No. LOI 4488 6 2.310111313 14 6± in. TOPSOILVery Loose, Dark Reddish-Brown Fine to MediumSAND, Some Silt, Little Gravel, Trace Organics(SM)Very Loose, Brown Fine SAND, Little Silt(SP-SM)Loose, Tan Fine to Medium SAND, Trace Silt andGravel (SP) End of Boring at 15 ftBorehole Backfilled with Bentonite Chips 1234 5 MMMM M 11.9 7822DT SOIL PROPERTIES 2.25" HSA; Autohammer (qa)SAMPLE soil types and the transition may be gradual.Chief Boring No.LOG OF TEST BORING (in.) 9/24/25 5 10 15 20NW 12.5' P (608) 288-4100, FAX (608) 288-7887NDepthNo. qu Start T WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONSRJPDepth to Cave in Plastic Ingenuity North ExpansionC25410 E Drill Method PL The stratification lines represent theSKLoggerNW Mazomanie, WIB-4 (tsf)Moist 20 Industrial Drive Editor9/24/25Depth to WaterGENERAL NOTESTime After Drilling15 Mins.Rig and RemarksSheet of approximate boundary between ProjectSurface Elevation (ft)1 1 CJ (ft) Driller Rec W 766.5± EndADC Y LL Location While DrillingUpon Completion of Drilling 2921 Perry Street, Madison, WI 53713VISUAL CLASSIFICATIONJob No. LOI 3866 11 9.810151415 16 5± in. TOPSOIL FillVery Loose, Dark Reddish-Brown Fine to MediumSAND, Some Silt, Little Gravel, Trace Organcis(SM)Loose, Brown to Tan Fine SAND, Trace Silt (SP) Loose to Medium Dense, Tan Fine to MediumSAND, Trace Silt and Gravel (SP) End of Boring at 15 ftBorehole Backfilled with Bentonite Chips 1234 5 MMMM M 1.9 7822DT SOIL PROPERTIES 2.25" HSA; Autohammer (qa)SAMPLE soil types and the transition may be gradual.Chief Boring No.LOG OF TEST BORING (in.) 9/24/25 5 10 15 20NW 12' P (608) 288-4100, FAX (608) 288-7887NDepthNo. qu Start T WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONSRJPDepth to Cave in Plastic Ingenuity North ExpansionC25410 E Drill Method PL The stratification lines represent theSKLoggerNW Mazomanie, WIB-5 (tsf)Moist 20 Industrial Drive Editor9/24/25Depth to WaterGENERAL NOTESTime After Drilling15 Mins.Rig and RemarksSheet of approximate boundary between ProjectSurface Elevation (ft)1 1 CJ (ft) Driller Rec W 767± EndADC Y LL Location While DrillingUpon Completion of Drilling 2921 Perry Street, Madison, WI 53713VISUAL CLASSIFICATIONJob No. LOI 491611 15 12131513 15 4± in. TOPSOILVery Loose, Dark Reddish-Brown Fine to MediumSAND, Some Silt, Little Gravel (SM)Very Loose, Brown to Reddish-Brown Fine SAND,Some Gravel, Little Silt (SP-SM)Loose to Medium Dense, Tan Fine to MediumSAND, Trace Silt and Gravel (SP) Medium Dense, Tan Fine to Coarse SAND, Littleto Trace Gravel, Trace Silt (SP)End of Boring at 15 ftBorehole Backfilled with Bentonite ChipsNote: Boring was Offset 40± ft East of PlannedLocation Due to Presence of Garden and Fencing. 1234 5 MMMM M 7822DT SOIL PROPERTIES 2.25" HSA; Autohammer (qa)SAMPLE soil types and the transition may be gradual.Chief Boring No.LOG OF TEST BORING (in.) 9/24/25 5 10 15 20NW 12' P (608) 288-4100, FAX (608) 288-7887NDepthNo. qu Start T WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONSRJPDepth to Cave in Plastic Ingenuity North ExpansionC25410 E Drill Method PL The stratification lines represent theSKLoggerNW Mazomanie, WIB-6 (tsf)Moist 20 Industrial Drive Editor9/24/25Depth to WaterGENERAL NOTESTime After Drilling15 Mins.Rig and RemarksSheet of approximate boundary between ProjectSurface Elevation (ft)1 1 CJ (ft) Driller Rec W 768± EndADC Y LL Location While DrillingUpon Completion of Drilling 2921 Perry Street, Madison, WI 53713VISUAL CLASSIFICATIONJob No. LOI 5202013 8 14111516 13 12± in. TOPSOIL (OL)Loose, Brown to Reddish-Brown Fine SAND,Some Gravel, Little Silt (SP-SM)Medium Dense, Tan Fine to Coarse SAND, SomeGravel, Trace Silt (SP)Medium Dense, Tan Fine SAND, Trace Silt (SP) Loose, Tan Fine to Medium SAND, Trace Silt andGravel (SP)End of Boring at 15 ftBorehole Backfilled with Bentonite Chips 1234 5 MMMM M 7822DT SOIL PROPERTIES 2.25" HSA; Autohammer (qa)SAMPLE soil types and the transition may be gradual.Chief Boring No.LOG OF TEST BORING (in.) 9/24/25 5 10 15 20NW 11' P (608) 288-4100, FAX (608) 288-7887NDepthNo. qu Start T WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONSRJPDepth to Cave in Plastic Ingenuity North ExpansionC25410 E Drill Method PL The stratification lines represent theSKLoggerNW Mazomanie, WIB-7 (tsf)Moist 20 Industrial Drive Editor9/24/25Depth to WaterGENERAL NOTESTime After Drilling15 Mins.Rig and RemarksSheet of approximate boundary between ProjectSurface Elevation (ft)1 1 CJ (ft) Driller Rec W 769± EndADC Y LL Location While DrillingUpon Completion of Drilling 2921 Perry Street, Madison, WI 53713VISUAL CLASSIFICATIONJob No. LOI 51397878 12131413141310 12± in. TOPSOILLoose, Dark Reddish-Brown Fine to MediumSAND, Some Silt, Little Gravel (SM)USDA: 7.5YR 2.5/2 Sandy LoamLoose to Medium Dense, Tan Fine SAND, TraceSilt (SP)USDA: 7.5YR 7/2 Fine Sand Loose, Tan Fine to Coarse SAND, Some Gravel,Trace Silt (SP)USDA: 10YR 7/3 Sand/Gravelly SandEnd of Boring at 16 ftBorehole Backfilled with Bentonite Chips 1234567 MMMMMMM 7822DT SOIL PROPERTIES 2.25" HSA; Autohammer (qa)SAMPLE soil types and the transition may be gradual.Chief Boring No.LOG OF TEST BORING (in.) 9/24/25 5 10 15 20NW 13' P (608) 288-4100, FAX (608) 288-7887NDepthNo. qu Start T WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONSRJPDepth to Cave in Plastic Ingenuity North ExpansionC25410 E Drill Method PL The stratification lines represent theSKLoggerNW Mazomanie, WIB-8 (tsf)Moist 20 Industrial Drive Editor9/24/25Depth to WaterGENERAL NOTESTime After Drilling15 Mins.Rig and RemarksSheet of approximate boundary between ProjectSurface Elevation (ft)1 1 CJ (ft) Driller Rec W 768± EndADC Y LL Location While DrillingUpon Completion of Drilling 2921 Perry Street, Madison, WI 53713VISUAL CLASSIFICATIONJob No. LOI LOG OF TEST BORING General Notes SYMBOLS Drilling and Sampling CS – Continuous Sampling RC – Rock Coring: Size AW, BW, NW, 2”W RQD – Rock Quality Designation RB – Rock Bit/Roller Bit FT – Fish Tail DC – Drove Casing C – Casing: Size 2 ½”, NW, 4”, HW CW – Clear Water DM – Drilling Mud HSA – Hollow Stem Auger FA – Flight Auger HA – Hand Auger COA – Clean-Out Auger SS - 2” Dia. Split-Barrel Sample 2ST – 2” Dia. Thin-Walled Tube Sample 3ST – 3” Dia. Thin-Walled Tube Sample PT – 3” Dia. Piston Tube Sample AS – Auger Sample WS – Wash Sample PTS – Peat Sample PS – Pitcher Sample NR – No Recovery S – Sounding PMT – Borehole Pressuremeter Test VS – Vane Shear Test WPT – Water Pressure Test Laboratory Tests qa – Penetrometer Reading, tons/sq ft qa – Unconfined Strength, tons/sq ft W – Moisture Content, % LL – Liquid Limit, % PL – Plastic Limit, % SL – Shrinkage Limit, % LI – Loss on Ignition D – Dry Unit Weight, lbs/cu ft pH – Measure of Soil Alkalinity or Acidity FS – Free Swell, % Water Level Measurement - Water Level at Time Shown NW – No Water Encountered WD – While Drilling BCR – Before Casing Removal ACR – After Casing Removal CW – Cave and Wet CM – Caved and Moist Note: Water level measurements shown on the boring logs represent conditions at the time indicated and may not reflect static levels, especially in cohesive soils. DESCRIPTIVE SOIL CLASSIFICATION Grain Size Terminology Soil Fraction Particle Size U.S. Standard Sieve Size Boulders ............................... Larger than 12” ..................... Larger than 12” Cobbles ................................ 3” to 12” ............................... 3” to 12” Gravel: Coarse..................... ¾” to 3” ............................... ¾” to 3” Fine ......................... 4.76 mm to ¾” ....................... #4 to ¾” Sand: Coarse ....................... 2.00 mm to 4.76 mm.............. #10 to #4 Medium ................... 0.42 to mm to 2.00 mm ......... #40 to #10 Fine ......................... 0.074 mm to 0.42 mm ............ #200 to #40 Silt ................................ ......... 0.005 mm to 0.074 mm .......... Smaller than #200 Clay ................................ ....... Smaller than 0.005 mm ......... Smaller than #200 Plasticity characteristics differentiate between silt and clay. General Terminology Relative Density Physical Characteristics Term “N” Value Color, moisture, grain shape, fineness, etc. Very Loose…….… . 0 - 4 Major Constituents Loose……………… 4 - 10 Clay, silt, sand, gravel Medium Dense…...10 - 30 Structure Dense……………...30 - 50 Laminated, varved, fibrous, stratified, Very Dense……….Over 50 cemented, fissured, etc. Geologic Origin Glacial, alluvial, eolian, residual, etc. Relative Proportions Of Cohesionless Soils Consistency Proportional Defining Range by Term qu-tons/sq. ft Term Percentage of Weight Very Soft……….. 0.0 to 0.25 Soft…………..…. 0.25 to 0.50 Trace.................................0% - 5% Medium………..…0.50 to 1.0 Little .............................. 5% - 12% Stiff…………….…. 1.0 to 2.0 Some ........................... 12% - 35% Very Stiff………..... 2.0 to 4.0 And ............................. 35% - 50% Hard……….………...Over 4.0 Organic Content by Combustion Method Plasticity Soil Description Loss on Ignition Term Plastic Index Non Organic…………………Less than 4% None to Slight……......0 - 4 Organic Silt/Clay……………4 – 12% Slight………………......5 - 7 Sedimentary Peat………….12% - 50% Medium……………......8 - 22 Fibrous and Woody Peat… More than 50% High to Very High .. Over 22 The penetration resistance, N, is the summation of the number of blows required to effect two successiv e 6” penetrations of the 2” split -barrel sampler. The sampler is driven with a 140 lb. weight falling 30” and is seated to a depth of 6” before commencing the standard penetration test. Clean Gravels (Less than 5% fines) Gravels with fines (More than 12% fines) Clean Sands (Less than 5% fines) Sands with fines (More than 12% fines) Madison - Milwaukee PT Peat and other highly organic soils MH Inorganic silts, micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils, elastic silts OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity, organic silts ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands, rock flour, silty or clayey fine sands or clayey silts with slight plasticity OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Atterberg limits below "A" line or P.I. less than 4 Atterberg limits above "A" line with P.I. greater than 7 Well-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Well-graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Poorly graded sands, gravelly sands, little or no fines Silty gravels, gravel-sand-silt mixtures Poorly-graded gravels, gravel-sand mixtures, little or no fines Clayey sands, sand-clay mixtures Atterberg limts above "A" line or P.I. greater than 7 SW SP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW Classification System Unified Soil SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit 50% or greater CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity, fat clays FINE-GRAINED SOILS (50% or more of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size.) SILTS AND CLAYS Liquid limit less than 50% CL LABORATORY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS COARSE-GRAINED SOILS (more than 50% of material is larger than No. 200 sieve size) Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays, lean clays SM Silty sands, sand-silt mixtures SW SP GM GP UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION AND SYMBOL CHART Clayey gravels, gravel-sand-clay mixtures Determine percentages of sand and gravel from grain-size curve. Depending on percentage of fines (fraction smaller than No. 200 sieve size), coarse- grained soils are classified as follows: Less than 5 percent …………………………………………... GW, GP, SW, SP More than 12 percent …….………………..….………………. GM, GC, SM, SC 5 to 12 percent ………………..….... Borderline cases requiring dual symbols GP Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW GW GM Atterberg limts below "A" line or P.I. less than 4 GC Above "A" line with P.I. between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols Limits plotting in shaded zone with P.I. between 4 and 7 are borderline cases requiring use of dual symbols SM SC GW 50% or more of coarse fraction smaller than No. 4 sieve size SANDS More than 50% of coarse fraction larger than No. 4 sieve size GRAVELS GC SC Cu = D60 D10 greater than 4; CC = D30 D10 × D60 between 1 and 3 Cu = D60 D10 greater than 4; CC = D30 D10 × D60 between 1 and 3 APPENDIX C DOCUMENT QUALIFICATIONS CGC, Inc. 07/01/2016 APPENDIX C DOCUMENT QUALIFICATIONS I. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS/LIMITATIONS CGC, Inc. should be provided the opportunity for a general review of the final design and specifications to confirm that earthwork and foundation requirements have been properly interpreted in the design and specifications. CGC should be retained to provide soil engineering services during excavation and subgrade preparation. This will allow us to observe that construction proceeds in compliance with the design concepts, specifications and recommendations, and also will allow design changes to be made in the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. CGC does not assume responsibility for compliance with the recommendations in this report unless we are retained to provide construction testing and observation services. This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted soil and foundation engineering practices and no other warranties are expressed or implied. The opinions and recommendations submitted in this report are based on interpretation of the subsurface information revealed by the test borings indicated on the location plan. The report does not reflect potential variations in subsurface conditions between or beyond these borings. Therefore, variations in soil conditions can be expected between the boring locations and fluctuations of groundwater levels may occur with time. The nature and extent of the variations may not become evident until construction. II. IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help. Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs of their clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineering report without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one - not even you - should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. READ THE FULL REPORT Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF PROJECT-SPECIFIC FACTORS Geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project-specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the client’s goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved, its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless the geotechnical engineer who conducted the study specifically indicates otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it’s changed from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed structure, • composition of the design team, or project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project changes - even minor ones - and request an assessment of their impact. CGC cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because our reports do not consider developments of which we were not informed. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN CHANGE A geotechnical engineering report is based on conditions that existed at the time the geotechnical engineer performed the study. Do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact the geotechnical engineer before applying the report to determine if it is still reliable. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis could prevent major problems. MOST GEOTECHNICAL FINDINGS ARE PROFESSIONAL OPINION Site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. Geotechnical engineers review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgement to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ - sometimes significantly - from those indicated in your report. Retaining the geotechnical engineer who developed your report to provide construction observation is the most CGC, Inc. 07/01/2016 effective method of managing the risks associated with unanticipated conditions. A REPORT’S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT FINAL Do not over -rely on the confirmation-dependent recommendations included in your report. Those confirmation-dependent recommendations are not final , because geotechnical engineers develop them principally from judgement and opinion . Geotechnical engineers can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. CGC cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report’s confirmation-dependent recommendations if we do not perform the geotechnical-construction observation required to confirm the recommendations’ applicability. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS SUBJECT TO MISINTERPRETATION Other design team members’ misinterpretation of geotechnical engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also retain your geotechnical engineer to review pertinent elements of the design team’s plans and specifications. Constructors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Confront that risk by having CGC participate in prebid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing geotechnical construction observation. DO NOT REDRAW THE ENGINEER’S LOGS Geotechnical engi neers prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors or omissions, the logs included in a geotechnical engineering report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable, but recognize that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. GIVE CONSTRUCTORS A COMPLETE REPORT AND GUIDANCE Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make constructors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give constructors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, advise constructors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report’s accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with th e geotechnical engineer who prepared the report (a modest fee may be required) and/or to conduct additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A prebid conference can also be valuable. Be sure constructors have suffici ent time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give constructors the best information available to you, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. READ RESPONSIBILITY PROVISIONS CLOSELY Some clients, design professionals, and constructors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding has created unrealistic expectations that have led to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce the risk of such outcomes , geotechnical engineers commonly include a variety of explanatory provisions in their reports. Sometimes labeled “limitations,” many of these provisions indicate where geotechnical engineer’s responsibilities begin and end, to help others recognize their own responsibilities and risks. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions. Your geotechnical engineer should respond fully and frankly. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ARE NOT COVERED The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform a n environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated contaminants. Unanticipated environmental problems have led to numerous project failures. If you have not yet obta ined your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on an environmental report prepared for someone else. OBTAIN PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE TO DEAL WITH MOLD Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts of mold from growing on indoor surfaces. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of mold prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional mold prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe mold infestations, many mold prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of the geotechnical engineering study whose findings are conveyed in this report, the geotechnical engineer in charge of this project is not a mold prevention consultant; none of the services performed in connection with the geotechnical engineer’s study were designed or conducted for the purpose of mold prevention. Proper implementation of the recommendations conveyed in this report will not of itself be sufficient to prevent mold from growing in or on the structure involved. RELY ON YOUR GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER FOR ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE Membership in the Geotechnical Business Council (GBC) of Geoprofessional Business Association exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Confer with CGC, a member of GBC, for more information. Modified and reprinted with permission from: Geotechnical Business Council of the Geoprofessional Business Association 8811 Colesville Road, Suite G 106 Silver Spring, MD 20910 APPENDIX D RECOMMENDED COMPACTED FILL SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX D CGC, INC. RECOMMENDED COMPACTED FILL SPECIFICATIONS General Fill Materials Proposed fill shall contain no vegetation, roots, topsoil, peat, ash, wood or any other non -soil material which by decomposition might cause settlement. Also, fill shall never be placed while frozen or on frozen surfaces. Rock, stone or broken concrete g reater than 6 in. in the largest dimension shall not be placed within 10 ft of the building area. Fill used greater than 10 ft beyond the building limits shall not contain rock, boulders or concrete pieces greater than a 2 sq ft area and shall not be plac ed within the final 2 ft of finish subgrade or in designated utility construction areas. Fill containing rock, boulders or concrete pieces should include sufficient finer material to fill voids among the larger fragments. Special Fill Materials In certain cases, special fill materials may be required for specific purposes, such as stabilizing subgrades, backfilling undercut excavations or filling behind retaining walls. For reference, WisDOT gradation specifications for various types of granular fill are attached in Table 1. Placement Method The approved fill shall be placed, spread and leveled in layers generally not exceeding 10 in. in thickness before compaction. The fill shall be placed at moisture content capable of achieving the desired compaction level. For clay soils or granular soils containing an appreciable amount of cohesive fines, moisture conditioning will likely be required. It is the Contractor's responsibility to provide all necessary compaction equipment and other grading equipment that may be required to attain the specified compaction. Hand -guided vibratory or tamping compactors will be required whenever fill is placed adjacent to walls, footings, columns or in confined areas. Compaction Specifications Maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the fill soil shall be determined in accordance with modified Proctor methods (ASTM D1557). The recommended field compaction as a percentage of the maximum dry density is shown in Table 2. Note that these compaction guidelines would generally not apply to coarse gravel/stone fill. Instead, a method specification would apply (e.g., compact in thin lifts with a vibratory compactor until no further consolidation is evident). Testing Procedures Representative samples of proposed fill shall be submitted to CGC, Inc. for optimum moisture -maximum density determination (ASTM D1557) prior to the start of fill placement. The sample size should be approximately 50 lb. CGC, Inc. shall be retained to perform field density tests to determine the level of compaction being achieved in the fill. The tests shall generally be conducted on each lift at the beginning of fill placement and at a frequency mutually agreed upon by the project team for the remainder of the project. WisDOT Section 311 WisDOT Section 312 WisDOT Section 210 Breaker Run Select Crushed Material 3-in. Dense Graded Base 1 1/4-in. Dense Graded Base 3/4-in. Dense Graded Base Grade 1 Granular Backfill Grade 2 Granular Backfill Structure Backfill Sieve Size 6 in. 100 5 in. 90-100 3 in. 90-100 100 1 1/2 in. 20-50 60-85 1 1/4 in. 95-100 1 in. 100 3/4 in. 40-65 70-93 95-100 3/8 in. 42-80 50-90 No. 4 15-40 25-63 35-70 100 (2) 100 (2) 25-100 No. 10 0-10 10-30 16-48 15-55 No. 40 5-20 8-28 10-35 75 (2) No. 100 15 (2) 30 (2) No. 200 2-12 2-12 5-15 8 (2) 15 (2) 15 (2) Notes: 1. Reference: Wisconsin Department of Transportation Standard Specifications for Highway and Structure Construction. 2. Percentage applies to the material passing the No. 4 sieve, not the entire sample. 3. Per WisDOT specifications, both breaker run and select crushed material can include concrete that is 'substantially free of steel, building materials and other deleterious material'. Area Clay/Silt Within 10 ft of building lines Footing bearing soils 93 - 95 Under floors, steps and walks - Lightly loaded floor slab 90 - Heavily loaded floor slab and thicker fill zones 92 Beyond 10 ft of building lines Under walks and pavements - Less than 2 ft below subgrade 92 - Greater than 2 ft below subgrade 90 Landscaping 85 Notes: 1. Based on Modified Proctor Dry Density (ASTM D 1557) Percent Passing by Weight Table 1 Gradation of Special Fill Materials Table 2 Compaction Guidelines Material WisDOT Section 305 WisDOT Section 209 90 95 90 95 90 Percent Compaction (1) Sand/Gravel 95 CGC, Inc. 6/2/2017 APPENDIX E WDSPS SOIL AND SITE EVALUATION – STORM FORMS PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION REPORTS 1002-CPS-23 Page of County Parcel I.D. Property Owner Property Location Govt. Lot ¼ ¼ S T 8 N R 6 E Property Owner's Mail Address Lot # Block# Subd. Name or CSM # City X Village Town Nearest Road Soil Moisture Drainage area sq ft acres Date of soil borings: USDA-NRCS WETS Value: Test site suitable for (check all that apply): Site not suitable; X Morphological Evaluation Dry = 1; Bioretention; Subsurface Disperal System; Double Ring Infiltrometer Normal = 2; Reuse; Irrigation; Other Other: (specify) Wet = 3. #OBS. X Pit Boring Ground surface elevation ft. Elevation of limiting factor ft. #OBS. X Pit Boring Ground surface elevation ft. Elevation of limiting factor ft. Name (Please Print) Signature Credential Number Address Date Evaluation Conducted Telephone Number 0sg ml gw < 5 201 N. Mallard Dr., Sun Prairie, WI 53590 9/17/2025 608-288-4100 0.5 3.640-60 10YR 6/3; 6/4 None GRS 0sg ml gw 15-25 18-40 10YR 3/6 None GRLS 60-66 10YR 6/4 None FS 66-144 10YR 6/4 None S 3.6 Comments: Test pit terminated at 12± ft. No apparent groundwater encountered to depth explored. Ryan J. Portman 011200001 - SP (1201636) TP1 766± < 754± CROSS PLAINS WI 53528 0sg ml gw < 5 < 5 1fsbk mfr gw 15-25 96-144 10YR 6/4 None 153/0806-172-8320-1 City State Zip Code Phone Number Hydraulic Application Test Method 9/17/2025 MAZOMANIE W. Hudson St Division of Industry Services Attachment 2: P.O. Box 2658 Madison, Wisconsin 53701 SOIL AND SITE EVALUATION - STORM 1017 PARK ST 1 CSM # 15064 Please print all information Reviewed by: Personal information you provide may be used for secondary purposes [Privacy Law, s. 15.04(1)(m)] Date: DET LLC NE NW 17 In accordance with SPS 382.365, 385, Wis. Adm. Code, and WDNR Standard 1002 1 1 Attach a complete site plan on paper not less than 8 ½ x 11 inches in size. Plan must include, but not limited to: vertical and horizontal reference point (BM), direction and percent of slope, scale or dimensions, north arrow, and BM referenced to nearest road Dane 0.13 Consistence Boundary % Rock Frags. % Fines Hydraulic App Rate Inches/Hr 0-15 Horizon Depth in. Dominant Color Munsell Redox Description Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Texture Structure Gr. Sz. Sh. 10YR 3/2 None SIL 1fsbk mfr gw < 5 0.5 0.13 34-52 10YR 3/6 None GRSL 15-34 10YR 3/4 None SIL 1fsbk mfr gw < 5 FS 52-96 10YR 5/6 None S 0sg ml < 5 0.5 mfr gw < 5 1.1* 3.61fsbk 0.13 Consistence Boundary % Rock Frags. % Fines Hydraulic App Rate Inches/Hr 0-18 Comments: Test pit terminated at 12± ft. No apparent groundwater encountered to depth explored. *Based on gradation results on sample obtained at a depth of about 5± ft. TP2 766.5± < 754.5± Horizon Depth in. Dominant Color Munsell Redox Description Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Texture Structure Gr. Sz. Sh. 10YR 3/3 None SIL 1fsbk mfr mfr gw 15-25 1.631fsbk SBD-10793 (R 7/17) WDNR - September 2017 1002-CPS-23 Page of County Parcel I.D. Property Owner Property Location Govt. Lot ¼ ¼ S T 8 N R 6 E Property Owner's Mail Address Lot # Block# Subd. Name or CSM # City X Village Town Nearest Road Soil Moisture Drainage area sq ft acres Date of soil borings: USDA-NRCS WETS Value: Test site suitable for (check all that apply): Site not suitable; X Morphological Evaluation Dry = 1; Bioretention; Subsurface Disperal System; Double Ring Infiltrometer Normal = 2; Reuse; Irrigation; Other Other: (specify) Wet = 3. #OBS. X Pit Boring Ground surface elevation ft. Elevation of limiting factor ft. Name (Please Print) Signature Credential Number Address Date Evaluation Conducted Telephone Number In accordance with SPS 382.365, 385, Wis. Adm. Code, and WDNR Standard 1002 1 1 Attach a complete site plan on paper not less than 8 ½ x 11 inches in size. Plan must include, but not limited to: vertical and horizontal reference point (BM), direction and percent of slope, scale or dimensions, north arrow, and BM referenced to nearest road Dane 153/0806-172-8100-1 Division of Industry Services Attachment 2: P.O. Box 2658 Madison, Wisconsin 53701 SOIL AND SITE EVALUATION - STORM 1017 PARK ST 1 CSM # 12359 City State Zip Code Phone Number Please print all information Reviewed by: Personal information you provide may be used for secondary purposes [Privacy Law, s. 15.04(1)(m)] Date: DET LLC NE NW 17 Hydraulic Application Test Method 9/17/2025 TP3 764± < 752± CROSS PLAINS WI 53528 MAZOMANIE W. Hudson St 0-9 10YR 3/4 None SIL Horizon Depth in. Dominant Color Munsell Redox Description Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Texture 1fsbk mfr gw < 5 0.13 Consistence Boundary % Rock Frags. % Fines Hydraulic App Rate Inches/Hr Structure Gr. Sz. Sh. 29-39 10YR 4/6 None LFS 9-29 10YR 3/3 None SL 1fsbk mfr gw < 5 0.5 mfr gw < 5 0.51fsbk 78-144 10YR 7/3 None FS 39-78 10YR 6/4 None FS 0sg ml < 5 0.5 ml gw < 5 0.9* 0.50sg Comments: Test pit terminated at 12± ft. No apparent groundwater encountered to depth explored. *Based on gradation results on sample obtained at a depth of about 5± ft. Ryan J. Portman 011200001 - SP (1201636) 201 N. Mallard Dr., Sun Prairie, WI 53590 9/17/2025 608-288-4100 SBD-10793 (R 7/17) WDNR - September 2017 1002-CPS-23 Page of County Parcel I.D. Property Owner Property Location Govt. Lot ¼ ¼ S T 8 N R 6 E Property Owner's Mail Address Lot # Block# Subd. Name or CSM # City X Village Town Nearest Road Soil Moisture Drainage area sq ft acres Date of soil borings: USDA-NRCS WETS Value: Test site suitable for (check all that apply): Site not suitable; X Morphological Evaluation Dry = 1; Bioretention; Subsurface Disperal System; Double Ring Infiltrometer Normal = 2; Reuse; Irrigation; Other Other: (specify) Wet = 3. #OBS. Pit X Boring Ground surface elevation ft. Elevation of limiting factor ft. Name (Please Print) Signature Credential Number Address Date Evaluation Conducted Telephone Number In accordance with SPS 382.365, 385, Wis. Adm. Code, and WDNR Standard 1002 1 1 Attach a complete site plan on paper not less than 8 ½ x 11 inches in size. Plan must include, but not limited to: vertical and horizontal reference point (BM), direction and percent of slope, scale or dimensions, north arrow, and BM referenced to nearest road Dane 153/0806-172-8190-1 Division of Industry Services Attachment 2: P.O. Box 2658 Madison, Wisconsin 53701 SOIL AND SITE EVALUATION - STORM 1017 PARK ST 4 CSM # 12359 City State Zip Code Phone Number Please print all information Reviewed by: Personal information you provide may be used for secondary purposes [Privacy Law, s. 15.04(1)(m)] Date: DET LLC NE NW 17 Hydraulic Application Test Method 9/17/2025 B-8 768± < 752± CROSS PLAINS WI 53528 MAZOMANIE W. Hudson St Topsoil (No Sample Obtained) Consistence Boundary % Rock Frags. % Fines Hydraulic App Rate Inches/Hr 0-12 Horizon Depth in. Dominant Color Munsell Redox Description Qu. Sz. Cont. Color Texture Structure Gr. Sz. Sh. 36-156 7.5YR 7/2 None FS 12-36 7.5YR 2.5/2 None SL 0sg ml gw < 5 0.5 mfr gw < 5 0.51fsbk 156-192 10YR 7/3 None S-GRS ml 10-20 3.60sg Comments: Boring terminated at 16± ft. No apparent groundwater encountered to depth explored. Ryan J. Portman 011200001 - SP (1201636) 201 N. Mallard Dr., Sun Prairie, WI 53590 9/24/2025 608-288-4100 SBD-10793 (R 7/17) WDNR - September 2017 Tested By: JFS Checked By: KJS 9/23/25(no specification provided) PL=LL=PI=D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=USCS=AASHTO=* Brown Fine to M edium Sand, Trace Silt and Gravel3/41/23/8#4#8#10#16#30#40#50#80#100#200100.099.299.298.798.498.498.397.275.034.910.15.81.1 0.51210.47580.37280.34360.28390.21480.17912.081.21SPNatural M oisture = 4.1%Ideal Builders, Inc.Plastic Inginuity - North ExpansionC25410 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Sample Number: TP-1Depth: 5' Date:Client:Project:Project No: Figure SIEVEPERCENTSPEC.*PASS?SIZEFINERPERCENT(X=NO) PERCENT FINER 0102030405060708090100 GRAIN SIZE -mm 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3" Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.3 23.4 73.9 1.1 6 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200 Particle Size Distribution Report Tested By: JFS Checked By: KJS 9/23/25(no specification provided) PL=LL=PI=D90=D85=D60=D50=D30=D15=D10=Cu=Cc=USCS=AASHTO=* Light Brown Fine Sand, Trace Silt#16#30#40#50#80#100#200100.099.395.472.47.73.40.9 0.37150.34330.27260.25450.22210.19670.18611.470.97SPNatural M oisture = 3.6%Ideal Builders, Inc.Plastic Inginuity - North ExpansionC25410 Material Description Atterberg Limits Coefficients Classification Remarks Sample Number: TP-3Depth: 5' Date:Client:Project:Project No: Figure SIEVEPERCENTSPEC.*PASS?SIZEFINERPERCENT(X=NO) PERCENT FINER 0102030405060708090100 GRAIN SIZE -mm 0.0010.010.1110100 % +3" Coarse % Gravel Fine Coarse Medium % Sand Fine Silt % Fines Clay 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.6 94.5 0.9 6 in.3 in.2 in.1½ in.1 in.¾ in.½ in.3/8 in.#4#10#20#30#40#60#100#140#200 Particle Size Distribution Report VILLAGE OF MAZOMANIE VILLAGE BOARD REPORT Meeting Date: February 24, 2026 Agenda Item: Site Plan Review – 509 Ridge Drive (§415-10 Preservation of Topography) Applicant: Mark & Sue Barry, Kippley Construction, Grothman & Associates BACKGROUND The applicants, Mark and Sue Barry, received Architectural Control Committee approval in accordance with the Pheasant Ridge Covenants and were issued a building permit in October 2025 for construction of a single-family residence at 509 Ridge Drive. On January 20, 2026, it was discovered that site excavation activities: • Encroached onto adjacent Lot 13 and Lot 15 • Removed the Village-owned five-foot access parcel providing access to parkland south of the property On January 21, 2026, the Village issued a Stop Work Order pursuant to Village Ordinance §415-10 (Preservation of Topography), which requires Plan Commission and Village Board approval of a site plan when significant alteration of topography occurs. PLAN COMMISSION 2/9/26 The Plan Commission reviewed and discussed the following matters: 1. Village-Owned Park Access Parcel • The five-foot access to parkland was disturbed during excavation. • Discussion included potential relocation of the access easement further east if Lot 15 is acquired by property owners. • Concerns were expressed by neighboring residents regarding preservation of intended park access for Pheasant Ridge Subdivision residents. 2. Adjacent Property Impacts • Excavation encroached onto Lot 13 and Lot 15. • The Commission discussed the need for: o Temporary easement agreements – Lot 13 and Lot 14 have a recorded temporary access easement for a period of 6-months. o The Utility easement between Lot 14 and Lot 15 could be abandoned if no utilities exist in this location. The abandoned easement shall be properly recorded. The utilities will need to approve the abandonment of these easements. o Restoration of adjacent properties to pre-construction condition 3. Lot 15 Acquisition • The applicants have submitted an Offer to Purchase Lot 15 with no contingencies, and it has been verbally agreed to on February 23, 2026. • Lot 15 will remain a buildable under Village Code (minimum lot width of 66 feet) if reconfigured. 4. Erosion Control and Slope Stability • Approximately 35-foot elevation changes from front to rear of lot. • South, east, and west slopes require erosion control measures. • Engineering staff requested: o Confirmation of Dane County erosion control permit ▪ Per Tomas Toro, February 9, 2026 – An erosion control permit was not filed, nor will be filed within the County. It is our understanding that the permitting agency in this case is the Village of Mazomanie, as an incorporated municipality. We do plan to satisfy all Village requirements regarding this matter. o Clarification of slope stabilization plan ▪ See additional materials included in the packet distributed 02/20/26. o Identification of slope materials ▪ A geotechnical engineer has been retained to determine slope materials. Results are included as an attachment. o Details regarding long-term maintenance ▪ The property will need to comply with Village Ordinance §312-1 “Noxious Weeds & Grasses” • Applicants’ representatives indicated approximately two feet of loose soil over bedrock, with exposed bedrock anticipated on the south slope. o Per Tomas Toro, February 9, 2026 – The excavated slopes appear stable at this time due to the rigidity of the exposed bedrock, further evaluation by a Geotechnical Engineer is recommended. Any plan for stabilizing or protecting the southern and eastern slopes, if required, has not yet been determined. The builder has contacted a Geotechnical Engineering firm to coordinate an inspection and assess whether additional long-term stabilization or protective measures are necessary. ▪ Plans should indicate which engineering firm will be conducting the erosion control. ▪ Village staff inspected the five-foot access parcel on February 16, 2026, and discovered discoloration of soils indicating potential erosion from the topsoil above the excavated surfaces. 5. Safety and Compliance • Consideration of park user safety. o A wrought-iron fence will be installed along the steepest parts of the slopes which complies with Village Ordinances. • Compliance with Village Property Maintenance and Noxious Weed ordinances will be required. PLAN COMMISSION DECISION 02/23/26: Motion: To conditionally approve the site plan, contingent upon the following conditions: 1. Retaining walls (including Envirolok) shall be stamped by a professional engineer, and shall be installed prior to the final certificate of occupancy. A temporary certificate of occupancy may be issued, based upon item #2. 2. In writing, residents affirm that they know the risks regarding erosion, especially if wall structures are not yet completed. 3. Utilities shall sign off on easement releases in separate document; along with an updated CSM. 4. Western retaining wall on Lot 13 shall still allow for 10’ utility easement. 5. That Lot 15 sale to the Barry’s is completed. 6. Certificate of Occupancy shall be withheld until retaining walls are completed or residents affirm risks. 7. The fence and berm shall be completed. The Stop Work can be rescinded administratively and will be rescinded on 2/24/26. The house has approximately 6-weeks of work left before completion. S66°46'05"E87.50'- S66°46'05"E87.50'- N23°13'55"E140.64'N66°46'05"W87.50'- S23°13'55"W140.64' S23°13'55"W140.64'N23°13'55"E140.64'N66°46'05"W87.50'-72.02'15.48' BENCHMARK:BURY TAG BOLTELEV = 818.90 HOUSE FLOORELEV = 825.03 BENCHMARK:TOP OF 3/4" REBARELEV = 817.03 GARAGE FLOORELEV = 818.30GROTHMAN& ASSOCIATES, S.C.PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOLL FREE: 800-242-8511 NORTH C1.0EXISTING CONDITIONS KIPPLEY CONSTRUCTION828 INDUSTRY ROADSAUK CITY, WI 53583 PHEASANT RIDGE RUN GRADINGBEING LOTS 14 AND 15 AND PARK - 2,PHEASANT RIDGE RUN, LOCATED IN THENE1/4 OF THE SE1/4 SECTION 17, T. 8 N.,R. 6E., VILLAGE OF MAZOMANIE, DANECOUNTY, WISCONSIN.PARCELS: 153/0806-174-0144-1153/0806-174-0155-1153/0806-174-0900-1PRELIMINARY G:\2025\2510\1025-597\04 ENGINEERING\01 DWG\1025-597 BASE.dwg, 2/19/2026 6:39:01 PM, ttoro S66°46'05"E87.50'- S66°46'05"E87.50'- N23°13'55"E140.64'N66°46'05"W87.50'- S23°13'55"W140.64' S23°13'55"W140.64'N23°13'55"E140.64'N66°46'05"W87.50'-72.02'15.48' BENCHMARK:BURY TAG BOLTELEV = 818.90 HOUSE FLOORELEV = 825.03 BENCHMARK:TOP OF 3/4" REBARELEV = 817.03S23°13'55"W110.64' 66.00' 109.00'72.02' 5.00'N23°13'55"E110.15' GARAGE FLOORELEV = 818.30 30.60'5.10'N34°34'47"E31.10' 102.88' N34°34'47"E GROTHMAN& ASSOCIATES, S.C.PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOLL FREE: 800-242-8511 NORTH C2.0PROPOSED SITE LAYOUT KIPPLEY CONSTRUCTION828 INDUSTRY ROADSAUK CITY, WI 53583 PHEASANT RIDGE RUN GRADINGBEING LOTS 14 AND 15 AND PARK - 2,PHEASANT RIDGE RUN, LOCATED IN THENE1/4 OF THE SE1/4 SECTION 17, T. 8 N.,R. 6E., VILLAGE OF MAZOMANIE, DANECOUNTY, WISCONSIN.PARCELS: 153/0806-174-0144-1153/0806-174-0155-1153/0806-174-0900-1PRELIMINARY G:\2025\2510\1025-597\04 ENGINEERING\01 DWG\1025-597 BASE.dwg, 2/19/2026 6:39:02 PM, ttoro BENCHMARK:BURY TAG BOLTELEV = 818.90 HOUSE FLOORELEV = 825.03 BENCHMARK:TOP OF 3/4" REBARELEV = 817.03 GARAGE FLOORELEV = 818.30GROTHMAN& ASSOCIATES, S.C.PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOLL FREE: 800-242-8511 NORTH C3.0PROPOSED GRADING PLAN KIPPLEY CONSTRUCTION828 INDUSTRY ROADSAUK CITY, WI 53583 PHEASANT RIDGE RUN GRADINGBEING LOTS 14 AND 15 AND PARK - 2,PHEASANT RIDGE RUN, LOCATED IN THENE1/4 OF THE SE1/4 SECTION 17, T. 8 N.,R. 6E., VILLAGE OF MAZOMANIE, DANECOUNTY, WISCONSIN.PARCELS: 153/0806-174-0144-1153/0806-174-0155-1153/0806-174-0900-1PRELIMINARY NOTES:1.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE TEMPORARYLIMITED EASEMENT (TLE) FOR ANY GRADING WORK INPRIVATE PROPERTY OWNED BY OTHERS.2.REMOVE ALL TREES 6" IN DIAMETER OR LARGER UP TO30' WEST OF THE WEST PROPERTY LINE OF LOT 14,PER TLE WITH LOT 13 OWNER(S).3.CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL TREES 6" INDIAMETER OR LARGER WITHIN 5 FEET OF THE TOP OFANY SLOPE. G:\2025\2510\1025-597\04 ENGINEERING\01 DWG\1025-597 BASE.dwg, 2/19/2026 6:39:03 PM, ttoro GROTHMAN& ASSOCIATES, S.C.PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOLL FREE: 800-242-8511 C3.1PROFILE KIPPLEY CONSTRUCTION828 INDUSTRY ROADSAUK CITY, WI 53583 PHEASANT RIDGE RUN GRADINGBEING LOTS 14 AND 15 AND PARK - 2,PHEASANT RIDGE RUN, LOCATED IN THENE1/4 OF THE SE1/4 SECTION 17, T. 8 N.,R. 6E., VILLAGE OF MAZOMANIE, DANECOUNTY, WISCONSIN.PARCELS: 153/0806-174-0144-1153/0806-174-0155-1153/0806-174-0900-1PRELIMINARY G:\2025\2510\1025-597\04 ENGINEERING\01 DWG\1025-597 BASE.dwg, 2/19/2026 6:39:04 PM, ttoro BENCHMARK:BURY TAG BOLTELEV = 818.90 HOUSE FLOORELEV = 825.03 BENCHMARK:TOP OF 3/4" REBARELEV = 817.03 GARAGE FLOORELEV = 818.30GROTHMAN& ASSOCIATES, S.C.PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TOLL FREE: 800-242-8511 NORTH C4.0PROPOSED EROSION CONTROLPLAN KIPPLEY CONSTRUCTION828 INDUSTRY ROADSAUK CITY, WI 53583 PHEASANT RIDGE RUN GRADINGBEING LOTS 14 AND 15 AND PARK - 2,PHEASANT RIDGE RUN, LOCATED IN THENE1/4 OF THE SE1/4 SECTION 17, T. 8 N.,R. 6E., VILLAGE OF MAZOMANIE, DANECOUNTY, WISCONSIN.PARCELS: 153/0806-174-0144-1153/0806-174-0155-1153/0806-174-0900-1PRELIMINARY G:\2025\2510\1025-597\04 ENGINEERING\01 DWG\1025-597 BASE.dwg, 2/19/2026 6:39:05 PM, ttoro GROTHMAN& ASSOCIATES, S.C.PROFESSIONAL SERVICES C5.0CONSTRUCTION DETAILS KIPPLEY CONSTRUCTION828 INDUSTRY ROADSAUK CITY, WI 53583 PHEASANT RIDGE RUN GRADINGBEING LOTS 14 AND 15 AND PARK - 2,PHEASANT RIDGE RUN, LOCATED IN THENE1/4 OF THE SE1/4 SECTION 17, T. 8 N.,R. 6E., VILLAGE OF MAZOMANIE, DANECOUNTY, WISCONSIN.PARCELS: 153/0806-174-0144-1153/0806-174-0155-1153/0806-174-0900-1PRELIMINARY G:\2025\2510\1025-597\04 ENGINEERING\01 DWG\1025-597 BASE.dwg, 2/19/2026 6:39:06 PM, ttoro GROTHMAN& ASSOCIATES, S.C.PROFESSIONAL SERVICES C5.1CONSTRUCTION DETAILS KIPPLEY CONSTRUCTION828 INDUSTRY ROADSAUK CITY, WI 53583 PHEASANT RIDGE RUN GRADINGBEING LOTS 14 AND 15 AND PARK - 2,PHEASANT RIDGE RUN, LOCATED IN THENE1/4 OF THE SE1/4 SECTION 17, T. 8 N.,R. 6E., VILLAGE OF MAZOMANIE, DANECOUNTY, WISCONSIN.PARCELS: 153/0806-174-0144-1153/0806-174-0155-1153/0806-174-0900-1PRELIMINARY G:\2025\2510\1025-597\04 ENGINEERING\01 DWG\1025-597 BASE.dwg, 2/19/2026 6:39:07 PM, ttoro GROTHMAN& ASSOCIATES, S.C.PROFESSIONAL SERVICES C5.2CONSTRUCTION DETAILS KIPPLEY CONSTRUCTION828 INDUSTRY ROADSAUK CITY, WI 53583 PHEASANT RIDGE RUN GRADINGBEING LOTS 14 AND 15 AND PARK - 2,PHEASANT RIDGE RUN, LOCATED IN THENE1/4 OF THE SE1/4 SECTION 17, T. 8 N.,R. 6E., VILLAGE OF MAZOMANIE, DANECOUNTY, WISCONSIN.PARCELS: 153/0806-174-0144-1153/0806-174-0155-1153/0806-174-0900-1PRELIMINARY G:\2025\2510\1025-597\04 ENGINEERING\01 DWG\1025-597 BASE.dwg, 2/19/2026 6:39:08 PM, ttoro GROTHMAN& ASSOCIATES, S.C.PROFESSIONAL SERVICES C5.3CONSTRUCTION DETAILS KIPPLEY CONSTRUCTION828 INDUSTRY ROADSAUK CITY, WI 53583 PHEASANT RIDGE RUN GRADINGBEING LOTS 14 AND 15 AND PARK - 2,PHEASANT RIDGE RUN, LOCATED IN THENE1/4 OF THE SE1/4 SECTION 17, T. 8 N.,R. 6E., VILLAGE OF MAZOMANIE, DANECOUNTY, WISCONSIN.PARCELS: 153/0806-174-0144-1153/0806-174-0155-1153/0806-174-0900-1PRELIMINARY G:\2025\2510\1025-597\04 ENGINEERING\01 DWG\1025-597 BASE.dwg, 2/19/2026 6:39:09 PM, ttoro GROTHMAN& ASSOCIATES, S.C.PROFESSIONAL SERVICES C5.4CONSTRUCTION DETAILS KIPPLEY CONSTRUCTION828 INDUSTRY ROADSAUK CITY, WI 53583 PHEASANT RIDGE RUN GRADINGBEING LOTS 14 AND 15 AND PARK - 2,PHEASANT RIDGE RUN, LOCATED IN THENE1/4 OF THE SE1/4 SECTION 17, T. 8 N.,R. 6E., VILLAGE OF MAZOMANIE, DANECOUNTY, WISCONSIN.PARCELS: 153/0806-174-0144-1153/0806-174-0155-1153/0806-174-0900-1PRELIMINARY G:\2025\2510\1025-597\04 ENGINEERING\01 DWG\1025-597 BASE.dwg, 2/19/2026 6:39:10 PM, ttoro GROTHMAN& ASSOCIATES, S.C.PROFESSIONAL SERVICES C5.5CONSTRUCTION DETAILS KIPPLEY CONSTRUCTION828 INDUSTRY ROADSAUK CITY, WI 53583 PHEASANT RIDGE RUN GRADINGBEING LOTS 14 AND 15 AND PARK - 2,PHEASANT RIDGE RUN, LOCATED IN THENE1/4 OF THE SE1/4 SECTION 17, T. 8 N.,R. 6E., VILLAGE OF MAZOMANIE, DANECOUNTY, WISCONSIN.PARCELS: 153/0806-174-0144-1153/0806-174-0155-1153/0806-174-0900-1PRELIMINARY EROSION CONTROL NOTES GRADING AND SEEDING NOTESG:\2025\2510\1025-597\04 ENGINEERING\01 DWG\1025-597 BASE.dwg, 2/19/2026 6:39:11 PM, ttoro