08-05-88 agedna
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 1998
6:30 P.M.
DECATHLON HOTEL & ATHLETIC CLUB
1700 EAST 79TH STREET
BLOOMINGTON, MN
AGENDA
y
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. RICHFIELD MITIGATION PANEL DISCUSSION RELATED TO PROPOSED NORTH-
SOUTH RUNWAY AT MSP AIRPORT. PANEL MEMBERS INCLUDE TWO
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MEMBERS, TWO METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS
COMMISSION MEMBERS AND TWO RICHFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
ADJOURNMENT
Auxiliary aids for individuals with disabilities are available upon request. Requests
must be made at least 96 hours in advance to the Administrative Services Director at
861-9702.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, AUGUST 3, 1998
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. 7:00-7:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF NEW ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO
TOBACCO AND TOBACCO PRODUCTS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 36
II. 7:30-8:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION INTO
BASEMENT SEEPAGE PROBLEMS IN 6700 BLOCK OF
THOMAS AVENUE AND SHERIDAN AVENUE
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 37
III. 8:00-8:30 P.M. UPDATE RELATED TO MASTER PARK PLAN
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 38
IV. 8:30-9:00 P.M. UPDATE RELATED TO MULTI-USE COMMUNITY
FACILITY
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 39
V. 9:00-9:15 P.M. UPDATE RELATED TO BALL FIELD REPLACEMENT
PROJECT
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 40
VI. 9:15-9:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF REMOVING NO PARKING SIGNS ON
76TH STREET EAST OF 1-35W AND POSSIBLE
IMPLEMENTATION OF DOWNSIZING OF 76TH STREET
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 41
J
VII. 9:30-9:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF SCHEDULING SPECIAL COUNCIL
MEETING(S) RELATED TO 1998 REVISED/1999
PROPOSED BUDGET
VIII. 9:45-10:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF AIRPORT RELATED ITEMS
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 42
10:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON
REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO
THE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 42
40 Agenda August 3, 1998
Issue Statement:
Status of airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following:
• Runway 4/22
Complaints continue to pour in to the MAC Complaint Line (194 calls in June) primarily
regarding airplane noise off Runway 4/22. It has been stated by five property owners in
southeast Richfield that if the City loses the noise spreading court battle with the MAC,
they will have no other choice then to sell their homes.
• Proposed Runway 17/35
The City of Richfield is not alone in its determination that the EIS of Runway 17/35 is
inadequate in many areas. Chuck Gering of McDermott, Will & Emery reviewed the EIS
comments from various state agencies and provided the City with preliminary analysis
on the substantive deficiencies other agencies have found. Gering's memo focused on
the comments that were submitted which raise significant issues as to the adequacy of
the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). The EPA, U.S. Department of the
Interior and EQB raised the most serious comments and issues. [See Attachment A]
The Mayor has sent out a gubernatorial survey to determine where Minnesota's
candidates stand on issues of MSP expansion. Results of this poll will be printed in
Richfield's Your City. The Sun Current will also be contacted to print the results. [See
Attachment B]
A mitigation panel discussion has been scheduled for July 30, 6:30 p.m. at the
Decathlon Club in Bloomington. Steve Cramer and John Himle will represent the MAC,
Neil Petersen and Curt Johnson will represent the Met Council, and Kristal Stokes and
Mayor Kirsch will represent Richfield. Council Member Stokes and Mayor Kirsch will
report on the mitigation panel discussions at the Council Study Session. A copy of the
Mitigation Plan Requirements has been included in this packet. [See Attachment CJ
The Senate Local and Metropolitan Government Committee will convene to review the
status of the expansion of MSP, the Final Environmental Impact Statement, and the
proposed mitigation of the impact of the expansion of the airport on surrounding
communities and programs. The meeting has been scheduled for August 18. [See
Attachment DJ
• Other Communities
John Halla, Community Council Member in St. Paul, requested that the City of Richfield
• send him Runway 4/22 briefing information on MAC's proposed project of noise
spreading. He stated that the St. Paul neighborhoods of Macalester and Groveland
were very concerned about what the extension of 1,000 feet to the north on 4-22 would
mean to their quality of life.
As a result of these concerns, the Macalester-Groveland Community Council created
an Airport Noise Committee. Issues the committee is expected to examine include:
40 0 a gubernatorial questionnaire and hosting a gubernatorial debate
0 low frequency noise and vibrations caused by moving runways closer to
neighborhoods
0 the north-south runway and the extension of Runway 4-22
[See Attachment E]
• MASAC Meeting
MAC staff has changed the way they are measuring the ratio of Stage II to Stage III air
operations. Staff is now referencing tail numbers on planes. This approach provides
more accurate information on when and what type of plane is flying. Roy Furhmann,
MASAC's technical representative, also went over the MAC Noise Program Handbook.
This extensive book provides basic airport operational information to MASAC members.
It was designed as a reference tool in answering resident's questions. MASAC and
Minneapolis City Council Member Sandra Colvin Roy then discussed a Minneapolis
community meeting that was held on July 27. The meeting was attended by 400 plus
residents of South Minneapolis who were experiencing high levels of aircraft noise.
Member Colvin Roy stated that residents as far north as Lake Street were asking when
Part 150 would become available for them.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss current airport issues.
Basis of Recommendation:
It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff regarding airport concerns.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer discussion to another date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of August 3, 1998.
Respectfully submitted,
James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
Ar"u,mw,r,t A.
•
MCDIERMOTT, WILL & EMXRY
Chicago
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: James Prosser
Dawn Weitzel
FROM: Charles M. Gering
RE: City of Richfield
DATE: July 23, 1998
This memorandum is in response to Dawn's request that we provide our analysis
of the most "substantial" comments submitted by other state and federal governmental agencies
or bodies concerning the FEIS for the Dual Track Airport Planning Process at Minneapolis/St.
Paul International Airport. The analysis set forth herein is preliminary in that Steve Pflaum
presently is on trial, and will be largely unavailable through the middle of next week.
Consequently, I have not had an opportunity to discuss the comments submitted by others in any
detail with Steve, and the analysis provided herein therefore lacks Steve's perspective and
expertise. Please consider this a preliminary analysis, and Steve and 1'711 provide appropriate
supplemental comments when Steve becomes available.
This memorandum will not discuss all of the comments that were submitted by
other governmental agencies and bodies, as many of the comments did not raise significant
issues regarding the adequacy of the FEIS. Indeed, most of the comments that were submitted
merely discussed various issues discussed in the FEIS without taking a position concerning
whether the 1~EIS was adequate. For purposes of this memorandum; I have attempted to focus on
the comments that were submitted which raise significant issues as to the adequacy of the FEIS.
T. Comments submitted by U.S. EPA
The most significant comment by EPA is its criticism of the alternatives analysis in the
I;EIS. As we pointed out in our comments, the alternatives analysis in the FEIS examines only
the preferred alternative and the no action alternative. In response to our comment on the DE IS
alternatives analysis, the FEIS suggests that EPA has "blessed" this approach. EPA's criticism
of the alternatives analysis in the FEIS makes it clear that EPA, in fact, has not signed off on the
approach taken with respect to analysis of alternatives, and signals a potentially significant
deficiency in the FEIS.
EPA's comments use strong language in criticizing the alternatives analysis: "we object
to an FEIS that does not provide for a detailed analysis of an array of alternatives and the
environmental impacts associated with those alternatives. Given the stature of EPA in the context
of the environmental review process, its strongly worded criticism of the FEIS on this
fundamental point should be taken seriously.
EPA's criticism of the segmentation of the review process (examining the 4-22 extension
project separately from the North-South runway project) also is helpful.
R. Comments submitted by the U.S. Department of the Interior
The Department of the Interior's comments also suggest significant deficiencies in the
FEIS. First, the Department's comments note that the HIS fails to analyze alternatives in light
of Section 4(f) impacts, and state that a full range of alternatives should be analyzed and
presented in a revised FEIS. These comments are particularly significant because the
constructive use of the wildlife refuge acknowledged in the FEIS triggers requirements under
Section 4(0 under which all feasible and prudent alternatives must be analyzed. The fact that the
Department of the Interior, which is the agency responsible for the refuge, is taking the position
that an appropriate analysis of alternatives has not taken place raises serious issues concerning
the adequacy of the FEIS.
The Department of the Interior's comments also state that the mitigation measures
discussed in the FEIS are only conceptual and fall far short of the measures recommended by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This comment similarly suggests potentially serious deficiencies
in the FEIS. Section 4(f) contains substantive requirements with respect to mitigation of
impacts, and the Department's position that the discussion in the FEIS of mitigation measures is
deficient potentially raises a substantive bar to the project. In addition, the Department's
comments concerning mitigation raise significant issues under MERA.
Finally, the Department of the Interior's comments state that the noise metric used in the
analyses set forth in the FEIS is inadequate, and that a noise metric appropriate for analyzing
effects on an environment like that of the wildlife refuge must be developed. Given that there is
legal precedent for a finding that DNL is an inappropriate indicator of effects on areas like
wildlife refuges, this comment raises a potentially significant issue concerning the adequacy of
the FEIS.
III. Comments submitted by the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board
The EQB's comments raise significant issues, albeit in an understated tone. The EQB's
comments state that the alternatives analysis in the FEIS is "somewhat problematic" in that it
discusses only the preferred alternative and the no action alternative. The EQB states that at
least one additional feasible alternative should be analyzed. The EQB also addresses mitigation,
stating that "[t]he level of analysis currently in the Final EIS does not give the retilewer sufficient
information to arrive at a fair appraisal." Furthermore, the EQB's comments state that the
The Friends of the Minnesota Valley submitted substantively similar comments.
cumulative effects discussion in the LEIS is inadequate, and that the FEIS improperly
incorporates certain documents by reference. Finally, the EQB's comments suggest that the
FEIS should include significant discussion of (1) the "unresolved issues" mentioned in the
FEIS's Executive Summary, (2) the Low Frequency Noise impact on the City of Richfield, and
(3) the impact of flights over the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge.
Although others who submitted comments raised these issues, the EQB's comments are
particularly significant because of its familiarity Nvith MEPA requirements. Each of the areas
covered by the EQB's comments potentially identifies a significant inadequacy of the FEIS.
cc: Steven F. Ptlauni
31905\01 0\50memcmg.002
•
•
-3-
Dear Candidate:
• Currently the Metropolitan Airports Commission(MAC) is planning a north/south
runway expansion that is scheduled to be completed by 2003. As planned
Runway 17/35 will adversely impact the community stability within Richfield. In
order to better inform our residents on candidate's views of airport expansion we
are asking you to complete a short questionnaire of five questions.
• If MAC and the FAA are unwilling to provide funding to mitigate the affects of
airport expansion are you willing to support special legislation supporting
Richfield's efforts to remain a vital and livable community. What funding
options would you offer in response to this situation?
• As governor how would you make the MAC more accountable for its
decisions that negatively impact neighboring communities?
• What role do you feel the Metropolitan Council should play in long range
planning at the airport?
• Would you support a detailed study of the health impacts of Low Frequency
Noise by either the Department of Health or another qualified medical
institution?
• As a candidate for governor what additional views on airport issues would
you like Richfield community members to know?
We would like to thank you in advance for your time in completing this survey.
Please return your answers to these questions by August 10. All candidate
responses will be reported in the Sun Current and the September edition of
Richfield's Your City, and sent to various other media sources. After the
publication of the poll all candidates will be sent an invitation to tour the affected
area. Enclosed you will find an informational packet containing background
information on this issue. City staff is available for detailed briefings and/or any
other informational requests that you may have.
Please direct completed surveys to: Mark Hinds, Special Projects Aide, City of
Richfield, 6700 Portland Ave. Richfield, MN 55423. EMAIL requests should be
directed to mhinds@ci.richfield.mn.us telephone inquires to 861-9708, and fax
responses to 861-9749.
Sincerely,
Martin Kirsch
Mayor
Enclosures
MJH
Aitaa?mrV\*- C,
RICHFIELD'S MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
1. HIGH NOISE LEVELS FROM RUNWAY OPERATIONS
A. and B. The MAC's new runway project must fund redevelopment of that portion
of Richfield subjected to the most significant noise impacts. This must be done by
the replacement of current residential land uses with noise compatible
redevelopment, and minimize population, student, and business losses.
a) land acquisition $110,000,000
b) relocation costs $36,000,000
C. Provide special low frequency sound reduction improvements for all structures in
the remaining impacted area, and more than the normal sound insulation work in the
"transition area" defined in the proposal.
c) low frequency noise treatments $29,600,000
D. Fund an independent study of the long-term health effects of aircraft noise (high
and low frequency) in the noise impacted area of Richfield.
d) noise-related health study $10,000,000
2. LOSS OF TAX BASE AND FEES DURING LAND USE CONVERSION
A. Provide full funding of the taxes, fees, and other revenues lost to the City of
• Richfield and the Richfield School District, over the full term of the redevelopment
project and establish an escrow or endowment fund to cover all losses beyond that
time.
a) loss of tax base and fees $30,000,000
B. Annex all MAC property adjacent to Taft Park to the City, and permit no more
MAC property acquisition in Richfield.
3. POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION
A. Protect and maintain groundwater quality for Richfield city wells.
a) groundwater protection and future remediation $500,000
B. Protect air quality including monitoring, testing and measurement
b) air quality protection $3,000,000
C. Assure surface water quality management
c) surface water improvements $500,000
4. TRAFFIC CONGESTION
A. Distribute construction traffic to all access points, complete improvement to the
E66th Street/TH77 interchange before Runway 17/35 construction begins, and
complete the E77 Street tunnel and ramps before the air cargo area is operational.
a) 66th and 77th Streets interchange with TH77 $40,000,000
RICHFIELD'S MITIGATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
B. Complete improvements to E66th Street, Portland, Twelfth, Bloomington, and
Nicollet Avenues. Provide "traffic calming" devices that will discourage further
diversions through adjacent residential areas, and include provisions for improved
transit access - including light rail - to and from the city.
b) city upgrades $33,500,000
DISINTEGRATION OF COMMUNITY APPEARANCE
A. Provide a 200-foot wide "greenbelt" landscaping area along all of the MAC site
adjacent to TH77.
a) landscape plantings, screening and habitat replacement $1,500,000
B. Provide effective, aesthetically pleasing, and ecologically responsible sound
barriers over the full length of highway improvements to TH62 and TH77 in
Richfield. This would include the architectural treatment of the air cargo buildings.
b) upgrade architectural treatment $6,000,000
C. Design and fund programs that reduce social impacts (i.e. neighborhood decay)
and provide incentives to retain residents, students, and businesses.
c) housing upgrade grants and loans $14,000,000
•
6. LOSS OF RECREATIONAL ASSETS
A. and B. Replace the Rich Acres and New Ford Town parks, golf courses, ball
fields, the community gardens, bluebird restoration project, and archery range.
a) replace parks $$2,500,000;
b) replace ball fields, golf course and archery range $12,000,000
7. ADMINISTRATIVE COST
Administration costs and management of Richfield's ten-year mitigation project
$2,500,000
•
0
0
C?
Z
L LI
LU
Of
Z)
0
LU
ry,
Z
^?
LL
Z
_O
/I-
V
I---
2i
Cn
J
l1J
LL
2
U_
)
O
U O
O
C5
O
O
O
r-
r
64 O
O
6
O
O
(D
Cl)
69 O
O
C)
O
(D
d;
N
64 O
O
C)
O
O
O
-
64 O
O
CT
O
O
O
M
69. O
O
C;
O
Lr)
69 O
O
6
O
O
M
V> O
O
&
O
LO
64 O
O
CT
O
O
O
64 O
O
C?
O
LO
M
co
64
N
O
?
O
c
O
O a)
x
co
m
O
0
C
O
cu
_
C
cu
? v
O _0
O O C
E
a)
Z
O
-
Q
Z
p
Q Cl-
E
O
U
Q
L
(u
°
T
O
Q
_
O
CL
_O
a)
a)
(D
L
c
0
(n
cr
U
(0
'0
J
Q
a) L
?
c
(n
(U
)
(n
-0
0
O
L
O
)
c
. E
C:
O
U
-0
w
O
U
o
w.
(6
L)
O
m
0
a
n
U
c
O
U
a)
rn
+-
N
E
m
(D
?•
(D
(n
c
U
O
L
J
U
CD
L
`.
L
O
o
N
N
O
L
co
a)
L
Q)
c
O
r
°
N
c
0
N
'0
O
O
n
C
T
C
0)
?
..L-
)
L
ca
O
?c
cn
O
c
D
U
c
0
0
c
U
"D
C
O
T
U
a)
(n
O
_
L
m
C
a)
L
Q
N
)
?.
L
.
O
?
Q
c
(a
T
U
?O
Y
a
O
..
C
Q)
(B
co
T
O
a
U
Q
x
0
c
Q
m
-
(D
-C
U
C
c
0
Q
U
O
V
a)
Q
o
d
UQ
a)
L
4)
L
L
_
T
_
N
O
(A
w
a
U
(B
C
(a
T
d
n.
O D
L
3
-0
C
O
(„)
O
CL
Q
O
N
D
cn
a)
E
70
c
m
C
+'
a)
O)
C
O
.-
C
O
E
?_
O
a
L
Q
m
(E
T
!-
?
)
1-
?.
U
C
O
a)
>
0
a
)
a)
E
a)
m
C
T
L
O
O
3
a)
U
t
UJ
U
-
n
_
O
C
(D
C-
)E
C
co
U)
O
to
m
-r-
M
O
7
w
co
C
U
Q
)
E
U
(v
-O
C:
m
a)
(?v
0)
Q
O
a)
a)
.....
T
U
M,
m
c
T L
D
3
c u)
a)
L 2
CL
(n
a _
N
c
0 C
E
0
c
a?'?
a)
O
-c
p)
C
0
O
U)
NO Q)
c
O
U
N C
a)
a1
O
0
+-
M
rn
0
U
U
_ N
O J
N p
c
M
?7
0
0
U)
Z
LLI
LLI
Cl-I
D
a
or_
Z
CL
Z
O
Q
C7
2
J
W
LL
U_
or_
0
0
0
?-
69 O
0
0
00
CO
69 O
0
0
00
?
64 O
0
0
°
N
6c* O
0
0
0 0
N
-
69 C)
0
0
?
N
64 C)
0
0
?
('')
C
O
N
U
N O
U)
? L
C O
O U
U E
o 0
U
(B ti-- -0 N 0)
Q O O
(n U)
O
L
M O O
?
? ? Q
_ O
t (3 Cl)
(? O U O L C
L L L- U N
(B Q (4
C « U) 7
(? ?+ O C L C }
C C O O
^
`
W
0 N
W C
0 m (B
Q
U O U) C U N
f6 O O
H 0
O) W
'
C (D 'O O 0
(d "- U ) C
?
Q U m ?r _ (0
- L Q
a) o 7
Q Z O
0 O _
C O O
U) U)
U
U
C L fn (B m
n
C O O) O (
Q O N N C
J
w
D
2 _
w Of E
a)
Q m U Q m Q
:tf
c
D (n
E
E (n
O
c?
U C
O O
O _ U
C m a)
O (D ?
.
+
_
? U
N
m
m U ` to
a)
c ?-
O
c
c u
( cn '
L ?
Q J Q
Q O
L6 m co ti H
JIM VICKERMAN
Senator 22nd District
2252 221 Street
Tracy, Minnesota 56175
and
Room 226 State Capitol Building
75 Constitution Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55155-1606
Phone: (612) 296-5650
Internet E-Mail:
sen.jim. vickerman@senate.leg.state.mn.us
July 27, 1998
Senate—
State of Minnesota
MEMO TO: Local and Metropolitan Government Committee Members
and Interested Parties
FROM: Senator Jim Vickerman, Chair
RE: DATE CHANGE for MSP Airport Expansion Status Hearing
Due to preliminary response, the hearing that was tentatively scheduled for August 19, 1998, will be
rescheduled for Tuesday, August 18, 1998, at 9:00 A.M., Room 15 Capitol. This hearing will address the
new airport expansion and its impact on surrounding communities and programs.
Please contact Alyssa Schlander (296-5968), Committee Administrator, if you have comments or questions or
• if you would like to be added to the agenda.
cc: Senator Ellen Anderson
Senator William Belanger, Jr.
Senator Linda Berglin
Senator Don Betzold
Senator Richard Cohen
Senator Dave Johnson
Senator Randy Kelly
Senator James Metzen
Senator Lawrence Pogemiller
Senator Jane Ranum
Senator Allan Spear
Senator Rey Terwilliger
Curt Johnson, Metropolitan Council
Jim Solem, Metropolitan Council
Chauncey Case, Metropolitan Council
Sandy Grieve, Metropolitan Airports Commission
Jeff Hamiel, Metropolitan Airports Commission
Nigel Finney, Metropolitan Airports Commission
Rod Sando, Environmental Quality Board
John Larson, Environmental Quality Board
City of Richfield
City of Minneapolis
City of St. Paul
City of Bloomington
Kathy Hahne, Leonard, Street & Deinard
Richard Schultz, MN Valley NWR
Nelson French, Friends of the MN Valley
COMMITTEES: Chair, Local & Metropolitan Government • Agriculture & Rural Development • Environment
W & Natural Resources • Taxes • Environment & Agriculture Budget Division • Property Taxes
& Local Government Budget Division
RECEIVED JUL 2 2 1996
JIM VICKERMAN
Senator 22nd District
2252 221 Street
Tracy, Minnesota 56175
and
Senate
Room 226 State Capitol Building
75 Constitution Avenue
St. Paul, MN 55155-1606
State of Minnesota
Phone: (612) 296-5650
Internet E-Mail:
senjim.vickerman@senate.leg.state.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO: Local and Metropolitan Government Committee
City of Richfield
Environmental Quality Board
Metropolitan Council
Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge
FROM: Senator Jim Vickerman, Chair, Local and Metropolitan Government Committ
RE: Minneapolis/ St. Paul Airport Expansion Status
DATE: July 16, 1998
The Legislature selected the development and expansion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul
Airport upon the completion of the seven-year process known as the Dual Tract Airport Planning
Process in 1996. At that time the Legislature mandated the implementation of the MSP 20-year
comprehensive plan [the 2010 Long-Term Comprehensive Plan (LTCP)]. This plan includes the
development of a new 8,000-foot runway and related airfield and roadway modifications.
The Federal Aviation Administration and MAC have now completed a Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) which contains the evaluation of the impacts on the
environment of the MSP 2010 LTCP, as well as the MSP 2020 Concept Plan and a no-action
alternative. The purpose of the FEIS is to disclose the environmental impacts of the proposed
action in connected projects, provide measures to mitigate potential adverse affects, and serve as
a decision-making tool in evaluating implementation of the proposed airport expansion. Also,
the FEIS is to provide interested agencies and the public with the information they need to
participate in a state and federal review of the proposed airport expansion. The Environmental
Quality Board will make a determination of adequacy of this FEIS this fall.
10 The proposed MSP Airport expansion consists of a new 8,000 foot, north-south runway
which would be added to the current three-runway airfield. Additional deicing pads at runway
COMMITTEES: Chair, Local & Metropolitan Government • Agriculture & Rural Development • Environment
W & Natural Resources • Taxes • Environment & Agriculture Budget Division • Property Taxes a js'••
& Local Government Budget Division
49 ends, enhanced storm water retention basins, improvements to the Trunk Highway 77- 66th
Street interchange and the relocation of the airport frontage road on the West and South sides of
the airport are also included in this expansion plan.
The Senate Local and Metropolitan Government Committee will convene for one or more
meetings as necessary to review the status of the expansion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport,
the FEIS, and the proposed mitigation of the impact of the expansion of the airport on
surrounding communities and programs.
Attached is a proposed agenda for the meeting, which is tentatively scheduled for Aug 19,
1998.
Please call Local and Metropolitan Government Committee Administrator, Alyssa
Schlander at 296-5968 with comments or questions.
•
r
49 TENTATIVE AGENDA
LOCAL AND METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
RE: NORTH-SOUTH RUNWAY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT UPDATE
1. Metropolitan Airports Commission
? Status of EIS and Process for Record of Decision and Determination of
Adequacy
? EIS Content -- Addressing low-frequency noise and Wildlife Refuge
Impacts
?'• Time-line for construction of the runway
2. Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge
? Refuge Issues with the EIS
? Refuge Mitigation
? Solutions
3. City of Richfield
? Low-frequency noise impact on the community
? Community mitigation
? Solutions
4. Public Testimony
? 0
r
•
AV" rvico? 1? -
Mac-Grove Committee to address
growing concern about airport noise
by Jane McClure
Complaints about increased air traffic over
St. Paul neighborhoods have prompted the
Macalester-Groveland Community Council
to create an Airport Noise Committee. The
committee will hold an organizational meet-
ing at 7:00 p.m. Thursday, July 23, at the
Edgcumbe Recreation Center, 320 S. Griggs
St. The meeting is open to the public.
One of the committee's first tasks will be to
find out where Minnesota's gubernatorial
candidates stand on the issues surrounding
air traffic noise and the expansion of the Min-
neapolis-St. Paul International Airport. The
committee plans to send out candidate ques-
tionnaires and host a gubernatorial debate af-
ter the September primary election.
"The impact of airport noise in the
Macalester-Groveland area is profound;'said
community council member John Halla."It
affects property values, the environment and
the quality of life. Whoever becomes gover-
nor will have a big impact on MAC (the Met-
ropolitan Airports Commission) and the
airport itself." The governor appoints the
members of MAC, who oversee the operation
of all regional airports.
Some of the issues the committee is ex-
pected to examine include:
• Low-frequency airport noise and vibra-
tions caused by moving runways closer to
neighborhoods. Halla and other board mem-
bers said they have noticed more ground
noise from the airport, especially on weekend
mornings.
• The new north-south runway and the ex-
tension of crosswind runway 4/22 that sends
flights over St. Paul. MAC plans to extend the
crosswind runway by 1,000 feet at its north-
east end in the year 2000 to accommodate
flights to Hong Kong.
MAC officials said the increased noise
heard this spring and summer in St. Paul
neighborhoods is being caused by recon-
struction of other runways and the diversion
of air traffic onto 4/22. Still, MAC staff indi-
cated at an earlier meeting that there will be
up to 20 jumbo jets taking off over St. Paul
neighborhoods each day within the next 10
years. That is up from 1.4 international daily
departures in 1991.
• The legal battle over the extension of run-
way 4/22. The city of Richfield is challenging
the crosswind runway's environmental study
in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Richfield
officials want ivlAC to study the cumulative
effects of the various runway projects sched-
uled at the airport." By separating the effects
of each individual project, the cumulative im-
pact to the environment is displaced and un-
known to the city and other surrounding
communities," said Richfield city manager
James Prosser.
MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
•
MEMORANDUM
MASAC
TO: MASAC Operations Committee
FROM: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
SUBJECT: Runup and Ground Noise Study Review
DATE: July 2, 1998
At the April 1998 MASAC meeting a Airport Ground Noise Study was initiated in an effort to
determine the sources of ground noise on the airport and the resultant impacts of such
operations on the surrounding communities. Since that meeting a period of substantial data
acquisition was accomplished and the preliminary methodology was developed.
The Airport Ground Noise Study is in the summary phase and nearing completion. As stated
at the June 1998 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, the monitoring is complete and the
analysis and summary of the data will be presented in Draft form at the July Operations
Meeting.
The report will include an Overview of the study requirements, a section on Understanding
Acoustics, the Study Results, an Airline Maintenance Survey and Conclusions and
Recommendations. In addition to the above, noise contours, flight tracks and graphs will be
analyzed and provided to assist in the determination of study impacts.?
0
MASAC OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
40
MEMORANDUM
TO: MASAC Operations Committee
FROM: Roy Fuhrmann, Technical Advisor
SUBJECT: Environmental Impact Statement Process (EIS) Brief
DATE: July 1, 1998
MASAC
The issue of airport development is a multi-dimensional topic encompassing the functions of planning,
assessment, funding and agency coordination. A large part of airport capital improvements is the
quantification of environmental consequences resulting from the development of an airport.
At the July 10, 1998 MASAC Operations Committee meeting, a presentation will be given by Mark
Ryan (MAC Airport Development) and Glen Orcutt (FAA Program Manager) regarding the state and
federal Environmental Impact Statement process as it relates to airport development. Please review the
attached outline of the EIS process.
If you have any questions or comments please contact me at 725-6326.
is
s
N
a y
m
M
}T? ?
C n? vpa,?? u
07 F w
•
0
r
n ?
d ti t L
O ? d C
? ?Vi 4 V
rl q
Fi Vl
g ;
W?a,.?
w
z w
O t
w
?n
A
y Q, p
U f+. H N
M
? O
y w
r?
N
M ? .r
O
__J
s
•
•
m
v m t
a. c
A ?0 d
V 4 V
"? A W
G d?
?l
a.
0
N
0
N A e4 Z 4
G
W
E-
U7 C
U X{{
W
F
F O G
N F
J
CU
? ? S H
?
<
M
rn
d
E- W C?
Qz N
C4 4 4 I
?
F
g
N,
O W
a
z 0.
w O S
y U 3
n
O
/ z
U
H H z
?o
a
pp
dd 0
yMy F < R7
H
a ? w
4
vFi a ? s ? ? o
M
(d
y
W M
? HOC
?
M
C.
?
C n6?, dppG? in
a a Iw
?
1
I
I
u
n
o
1 O+ 0.
J tl7
a gS
G EWy y
? U W .7
??
rn
W m
E- a aU £4
E.
E.
a. a
U
M
N 6
V
Q M
tq y W
?
? 4
N ? (
?
yW
y
H r
CG C+.
4
E V
M
? a
Q
h d d H H M1
C W
W C 2
a
W
F
y
LLJ
Y
U
D3 0 'n z
W p to a
Il
L
m
r
d
d Ol L
t ad
a c
/7 A y
Y
?
? A
.. m a
C Y
c m e
4 a.-
4 0
p r1
g
O _W
W to
d
w
C.
I W H M
?G F N
4 O W
'n
O1
w 4 F
U
z ?a
rn
r1
a
W
H y
2 .-1 01
[a y z a
?+ 2
W O 1.:w
n
n
n
N 0
O
N U m N
N K ? p7 W O O?
in O to W z c
R
d I H fG
y
to 4 z
a w W 4
1
I
I
I
e
C6
U3
H
N
z
a
c+1 z
O
w
w
o
X •?
< F
00
F
to
H U V.
U
:.7
l a
w
V) o z
s 0 ?a?v
n
9a ?
a o ~
ao
W W U U
G W w a
`?
F
VI O
04 o
P. PC C.] i
i
N
0
O F 4
n.
w F r1 M ? O O
(n d 4 1
b
F
to O
0: N n, w F o O
D 4 L. to r1 S a
r,.Sx?aor`
\ Xl <
r'
I
o '
z L.
v
N
01
U
z
d O ?
w
1-
W
0 LL N ({]
w
Q. x OF
Q. 4 0z
0 F .
u,
m
u
a
vwi a
N
W
vi U
a N t7
y
Sri
a C7
EA W
o b
uHf z >W
d ? t0+
4
.
Page 3
•
0
N
w
z
O
C
z
A
? z
O
z
w
A
I••I
0
oa
W
n
cl?
un
O^
W
z
0
J
n
C
? u
? y L n
? U o
0
n a ? ?
C ? 7 J
O C y ?
JI :7
r L a N
? C
80
n„y ? C
p ? V O
? c? c0
n
a
'In
M
00
00 O O
00 ?4
N N
N
Z
O
o
V v
s
y
F' U It
=?oooooo
P CD O zz; a C r
N N - - -
b4 Erg fry 69 FiT bq f
I
C O\ C: V" 1- r,
E(A (.Oq C v C O
?60? 60? roq
n n :n of :n
v L y 11 v ?
0 0 0 0 0 r..
Q1 M <i'? M N I?
M C Ln? C Q
N Lf1 00 O ?
N rn C' v1 ?o t-
O\ ON a, ON O+ ON
O+ O1 O? ON as ON
o?
H
A
L
V
..7
Q
F
Q
Metropolitan Airports Commission
Minneapolis - St. Paul International Airport Complaint Summary
•
•
June 1998
Complaint Summary by City
city Arrival Departure Total Percents e
Anoka 0.1%
Apple Valley %
Arden Hills 0 12 12 0.7%
B 1 i 238 44 4.
Burn vill 114 117 %
Ea an 23 1 129 7.4%
Eden Prairie 4 %
Edina 2 to
Golden Valley 0 2 2 0.1%
Hopkins 2 0.1%
Inver Grove Hei h 12 21 33 1.9%
Maple Grove 1 24 1.4
%
Mendota 1 1 .1%
Mendota Hei hts 134 142 .2%
Minneapolis 193 386 7 .4%
Minnetonka 1 1 0.1%
New Brighton 1 1 01%
Plymouth 1 1 0.1%
Prior Lake 0 2 2 0.1%
Richfield 7 17 194 11.2%
Roseville 0 2 2 0.1%
Sava e 1 24 2 1.4%
Shoreview 1 l 0.1%
St. Paul 143 27 17 .8%
South t. Paul 0 5 5 0.3%
St. Louis Park 1 I 11 22 1.2%
Sunfish Lake 8 0.4%
West St. Paul 1 2 3 0.2%
Total 423 1312 17,5 1(x) q ::1
Time of Day Nature of Complaint
Time Total
- 05:59 4 Excessive Noise 1207
- 6:59 Earl /Late 6
07:00 - 11:5 6 Low Flying 14
12: 00 - 15.59 2 Structural Disturbance
1 7
1 - 19:59 1 Helicopter I
2 - 21:59 239
round Noise 15
22:00 - 22:59 1 En gin
Run-up 0
-
Total 1750 Total 1750
Page 2 Aviation Noise Satellite Programs
•
_T
7
Ol
O
J
C
O
O
7
C3
C
M
CL
E
O
U
N
U
2'
c?
U) Q)
U
o
C D
O
r U)
T
O L
ti M
E N O C
L
O
Q)
i
C N
C
O 7
C
C
Q O
N
N C
a
O
C N
U
O
(6
0
0- O C
O O
(D 70 T
_0
N C
O T
7
U C
_ _0
a) (0 N U
L _
N
E
N
L
d N
N N U
_ Q' O
>
C
0 a) -C
c
U U) 3:
(U 0
C
O C x
v) o
J U
O
p N
co O
m
C14
C7
"-
-o ca c
a
M C C C C
O L O a)
" a)
L3 »r O
N 0
N
N
N CO O >
Z Q? 06 Q (If Q
N C7 c1
N
m
cu
a-
•
•
al
O
J
C
O
a?
0
C
CU
CL
E
O
U
a?
w
L
U
L rn
:3 C:
O N p O C
(n
L
(0 to
CU L
O ?
= a 3
o
Z
N c m m O
.c
0 _0
C
w cn
O
0 2 O C:
Q
7 r-
O
U L
O
0
6 x
N O
L C
O m
C
- a) co
C
Q)
O
- >.
(D
D
0 0 O L'0 O to C-
U) O
-Q a 3 a L M 0)
M-0 Z Q 3 Q O O C
L N a) 0 C E Q
O ?. O Y O 0)
O - CL
0 O N +' C O U O O) m
m '0 ?o
(D
M -0 U) En
c
L -c o ° 3 = 3
O_
w Q
C)
?n
c
co LO 1-
m aS Q m
C C _ C
N O C O m
-p 'O M t? 70
U)
O Qj
> in
N
O, L
U O
O
w Q w a_
cy') LC)
rn Cy)' .-
C ? O C
- -- -- - -
LO (O Il- 00
N
O
m
[0
a
0
1
T
7
m
O
J
C
O
U
7
• Q)
d
c
n
E
O
U
N
L
U
ne,
O o
O
L ? CD w
.•_. m ? ? a) w p m CO c 3 U
3 3
°
m o > L cn ui a)
0) O °
C
?
cn
> -
° ca
W
O
L
?•
c °
u) m
Y >,
m =
a- c
U) 0 a) - Q
c
C:
O
Q
Q) (j
a) m U °
r
?-
C
-p
`
cp
j
O c
U)
U)
w
c
a)
U 0
cn L
U)
N L
Q
(a j C O Q w0
L ol -
:3
` c
0
CU
0)
C
En
=
a)
>, a) p .-
° Y
O
O O_ Q)
0 O
0) Z (6 L (6 O Q
O
O O
L
L O
cn > >O N O (6 a) i
v c (T6
C
U
E L
(B '? C
O
0)
-
Q
.-.
C
0 0
L) c CL :3
' O C p cu •"' m T O ? )
C
1
E
Q
(n
Y
..
0 0 0
w
cn
m ) L L d)
-
L
C FD
-
` C
N
w
C
a) C
a)
O r
O LO
0)
Q ? (n ? ti ti
?
? C
O ? (B (6 (6
m
- C C p C
w FD
v= a)
0 Q)
0 U 0
CO -0
L
U U) (n ai
(B (n Q Q
I` O
N O
N ?
N
N
N
D O
O O r- N c°
M
O
m
co
0
•
_T
7
O
J
C
O
O
7
d
C
M
CL
E
O
U
a?
L
U
ry,
? tB O
Q ° c
m rn Q N O
3
o c L
_
- U)
c
.?
c
cn T ca
a? u
o o
_ to
O N
L
N .-
O
-0 c
° o -0
c
c
°
3
c
cn
m a) ( O
CL
°
>
C
CA
L
O ° > N >, O O
-O O 0) U
C
d)
(1)
D
O
+- N O C D
` O
0 ca
O N O m +-
U) o ° > a) 0
V
C
C
L
U O U) O Q) 0 3
O C O N L c
cn C
cu C
-T
0
C:
a)
-0 0
C: C:
z o a a m 32 a
v
d CO
rn ai
m > rn
o
C') Q
C
O
.. 0) ?-.
C C C C
_0 70
O
O
O
m m
N (D CC)
N
N
:3 7
V LO (0
O
a-
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 41
Agenda August 3, 1998
Issue Statement:
Consideration of removing No Parking signs on 76th Street east of 1-35W and possible
implementation of downsizing of 76th Street.
Background:
A study of possible downsizing of 76th Street east of 1-35W was completed in March,
1997. During the review of the draft Capital Improvement Program for 1999-2004, the
Planning Commission and the Community Services Commission recommended
delaying implementation of the study until the year 2004 due to high cost and a lack of
community support for the bikeway concept. Last year's CIP showed work beginning in
1998.
Recently, a resident asked that the No Parking signs on 76th Street be removed and
the roadway become a two-lane street in recognition of the reduced traffic on it. A
response to this request requires City officials to evaluate the future of downsizing 76th
Street east of 1-35W. City staff uncertainty with the recommended design of the 76th
Street bikeway makes it difficult to prohibit parking on 76th Street.
Even though no steps have been made to implement the downsizing study, significant
forces have come into play that have a direct bearing on the study. They are:
i The City has included the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over 1-35W at
76th Street in the Capital Improvement Program for 1999.
• Federal funds have been secured to replace the Lyndale Avenue bridge over 1-494.
This will trigger possible redevelopment along 76th Street at Lyndale Avenue.
• An Airport Mitigation Plan has been developed that alters land uses on the east end
of 76th Street.
• Federal funds have been secured to extend 77th Street under Trunk Highway 77
(TH 77). The 77th Street Phase III design has not resolved the ramp connection
from TH 77 to 77th Street. This decision may have a major impact on 76th Street.
• Northern States Power has begun to reconsider its policy for placing power lines
underground.
Experience by City staff with bikeway planning shows that the issues/solutions are more
complex than they initially appear. The following issues will be discussed at the Council
Study Session:
• High construction cost
• Analysis of bike accidents in Richfield and Hennepin County
• Principles of good bikeway design
• Needs of experienced and inexperienced bicyclists
• Maintenance of bikeways and sidewalks
• Public roads for mobility versus parking
• Public involvement process
Recommended Motion:
A proposal for discussion purposes only is to remove No Parking signs on 76th Street
from its intersection with 77th Street to Cedar Avenue except within 150' from busy
cross streets; i.e., 77th St., Lyndale Avenue, Nicollet Avenue, Portland Avenue, 12th
Avenue and Cedar Avenue, and stripe 76th Street for two lanes (four lanes within 150
feet of busy cross streets.) This is an interim first step in downsizing 76th Street.
Evaluate the demand for on-street parking and the amount of bike traffic on 76th Street.
Revise the design recommended in the downsizing report. No Council action is
requested.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. There is a need to inform the community of the disposition of the 76th Street
downsizing study.
2. Additional time is provided for City staff to re-evaluate the recommended design to
see if it can be improved before funds are invested in a capital improvement.
3. Removal of No Parking signs can be viewed as an interim step in downsizing 76th
Street.
4. Removal of No Parking signs can be a low cost method to evaluate the demand for
on-street parking and bike traffic.
Alternative Recommendations:
1. Deny the request for removal of No Parking signs on 76th Street east of 1-35W. This
is feasible but a decision on the downsizing of 76th Street is appropriate.
2. Deny the request but decide to build the proposed bikeway west of Lyndale Avenue
as part of the Lyndale Avenue Gateway South Redevelopment plan.
3. Reactivate the 76th Street East of 1-35W Task Force to reevaluate the bikeway
design. The task force was originally asked to serve for only a limited time and
completed its duties. People who served on the task force can be involved in any
future discussions without participating on a task force.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
There is no deadline for a decision. A decision on an interim plan to allow on-street
parking should be made by this fall so the community will be able to evaluate it by next
spring, 1999.
ly submitted,
City
0 JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 40
Agenda August 3, 1998
Issue Statement:
Update on ball field replacement project.
Background:
The City has received a grant from the State for $2 million to develop and improve ball
fields at various parks to replace ball fields currently in use on Metropolitan Airports
Commission (MAC) property. The grant is only half of the estimated cost of the total
plan which was developed by the Ball Field Task Force and recommended for
implementation by the Community Services Commission.
The concept plan was reviewed at the March 16 joint meeting of the Richfield Board of
Education and the City Council. Discussion has been held with the appropriate
jurisdictions and neighborhood meetings were held to discuss proposed plans, design,
and funding for ballfield replacement at the following sites.
The purpose of discussion at the August 3 Council Study Session is to bring the
Council up to date on designs for the sites, the schedule for construction of
replacement ballfields and discussion of alternate plans.
Recommended Motion:
This is a discussion item. No formal action is needed at this time.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. With the loss of Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), ball fields need to be
replaced.
2. A Ballfield Task Force developed a replacement plan.
3. A State grant will afford about half of the total plan.
4. Residents and appropriate jurisdictions have been involved in the planning and
design of replacement ballfields.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the August 3, 1998 Council Study Session. Any formal
action required of or requested by Council will take place at a regular Council meeting.
Respectfully, submitted,
41 James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 39
Agenda August 3, 1998
Issue Statement:
Update related to multi-use community facility.
Background:
The Master Park Plan sub-committee and Community Services Commission have
determined there is a continued interest in a multi-use facility in Richfield. This
determination is based on findings of the 1997 community survey and on information
received at various meetings to get input on the Master Park Plan. The proposed
facility has previously been in the Capital Improvement Program and is currently a part
of the 1998 Capital Improvement Budget. The suggested approach to the proposed
project is to conduct a feasibility study in 1998. The study would include several public
meetings and meetings with advisory groups as well as with the City Council. Results
of the feasibility study would be expected in December 1998.
Recommended Motion:
No formal action is needed at this time although staff requests an indication of how
Council believes the multi-use community facility project should be approached.
Basis of Recommendation:
A multi-use community facility (recreation activities building) is included in the adopted
1998 Capital Budget. Because of the scope of the proposed facility project, staff is
suggesting a feasibility study be conducted related to program and finance elements
before proceeding with the project.
Alternative Recommendation:
Do not proceed with the multi-use community facility project. However, because there
is community interest in the project, such a decision may be more appropriate after the
results of a feasibility study are known.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the August 3 Council Study Session. Any formal action
needed by Council would be scheduled for the regular August 10 Council meeting.
submitted,
James
is City M2
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 38
Agenda August 3, 1998
Issue Statement:
Update related to Master Park Plan.
Background:
The Master Park Plan sub-committee of the Community Services Commission has
spent over a year studying the City's park system. Aspects of the existing Master Park
Plan have been reviewed including, but not limited to:
• Ice Arena
• Community Center
• Rich Acres Golf Course
• Wood Lake Nature Center
• Swimming Pool
• Bike/Hike Trails
• Athletic Fields
• Veterans Memorial Park of Richfield
The sub-committee regularly provides a report to the Community Services Commission.
This information has been available to Council through the Community Services
Commission minutes. Sub-committee chair, Maureen Scaglia, will be in attendance to
update the Council on sub-committee discussions and to answer any questions from
members of the Council or the public about the sub-committee considerations.
Recommended Motion:
No formal Council action needed.
James Prosser
Basis of Recommendation:
The Master Park Plan is being reviewed by a sub-committee of the Community
Services Commission. The Commission is advisory to the City Council.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This update is scheduled for the August 3, 1998 Council Study Session. Council may
choose to offer suggestions to the Master Park Plan sub-committee and/or request
additional status reports from the sub-committee and the Community Services
Commission prior to acting, in the future, on a revised Master Park Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
. P Prosser
James
City Manager
JDP:ds
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 37
Agenda August 3, 1998
Issue Statement:
Discussion of results of investigation into basement seepage problems in the 6700
block of Thomas Avenue and Sheridan Avenue.
Background:
Residents in the 6700 block of Thomas and Sheridan Avenue contacted staff in the late
summer/early fall of 1997 to discuss a common problem of water in the basements.
The residents told of a long running problem of water seeping into basements from the
floors and walls. They were not certain of the cause of the problem. The problem was
particularly noticeable in 1987, 1993 and 1997. Some residents speculated that the
Jefferson Park project seemed to make the problem worse. Several residents received
grants from FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Assistance) program to recover
losses in 1997.
As follow-up to a September 29, 1997 neighborhood meeting, the City ordered a series
of soil borings to be conducted within and around the block. The results of the borings
• were reported in a letter dated January 22, 1998. The letter indicated the
recommended long term solution to the basement inflow problem was for each home
owner to install a storm water collection system below the elevation of the basement
floor to collect the trapped water and a sump pump to pump the water up and out into
the yard so the water can find its way to the City street drain.
In May of 1998, residents were indicating continued concerns about water in the
basements of residences in the 6700 block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue.
Soil borings had verified that there are alternating layers of water bearing sandy soils
and impervious (water tight) soils which are holding the water table high enough to
reach the basements. In an effort to resolve the concerns of the residents, the City
hired Pete Willenbring of WSB and Associates, Inc. to meet with the residents and
perform his own analysis.
The attached report from WSB and Associates, Inc. discusses the results of hydrologic
analysis of the Jefferson Park area. City staff and Pete Willenbring of WSB and
Associates, Inc. will be at the August 3, 1998 Council Study Session to discuss the
report including summary of findings/conclusions and improvement alternatives.
Recommended Motion:
This is a discussion item. In the event Council should decide formal Council action is
needed, such action will be scheduled for a regular City Council meeting.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Residents in the 6700 block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue have
experienced water seepage in their basements.
2. Following City investigation and recommendation related to the problem, residents
continued to express concern.
3. WSB and Associates, Inc. has met with the residents and conducted a hydrologic
analysis of the Jefferson Park area.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for Council discussion at 7:30 p.m., Monday, August 3, 1998.
Residents of the 6700 block of Thomas Avenue and Sheridan Avenue have received
copies of the report which is the item of discussion.
submitted,
• Jam
City
JDP:ds
Attachment
40
?sB
'Associates, Inc.
B.A. Mittelsteadt. P.E.
Bret A. Weiss. P.E.
Peter R. Willenbring, P.E.
Donald W. Stuna, P.E.
Ronald B. Bray, P.E.
Memorandum
To: Residents in the 6700 Block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue
City of Richfield
From: Pete Willenbring, P.E.
WSB & Associates, Inc.
Date: June 22, 1998
Re: Results of Hydrologic Analysis of Jefferson Park Area
WSB Project No. 1000.33
I. Introduction
It is the purpose of this memorandum to outline the results of an investigation into
basement seepage problems that have been identified to be present along homes in
the 6700 block of Thomas and Sheridan Avenues within the City of Richfield. As
part of this investigation, background information concerning the problems that were
experienced by these homeowners was gathered at a meeting with homeowners in the
area on June 2, 1998. In addition to the information furnished by the residents, plans
for Jefferson Park before and after the 1992 improvements were reviewed,
topographic information for the watershed was analyzed, climatological data was
gathered, estimates of evapo-transpiration were developed, and options associated
with improvements to correct or address the problem were identified. This
information is further provided in the body of this technical memorandum.
II. Description of Problem
Based on information submitted by the property owners in attendance at the meeting
on June 2, 1998 at the Jefferson Park building (see Appendix A for list of names and
addresses of attendees), the following constitutes their general description of the
problem:
• Residents within the 6700 block of Sheridan and Thomas Avenue experienced
water seepage into their basements. In most cases, water was observed
entering the basement from the northwest corner of the structure. In most
350 Westwood Lake Office
8441 Wayzata Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55426
612-541-4800
FAX 541-1700
F:1 W P W IN11000.3 3 \06 2 2 9 9-res
h!ftastructure Engineers Planners
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ENIPLOYER
Residents in the 6700 Block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue
City of Richfield -
June 22, 1998
Page 3
A resident at 6717 Russell Avenue indicated that they have a problem with a
wet basement until approximately mid-September until the problem then
dissipates over the winter months.
IV Analysis Results
• A review of surficial topography information for the study area indicates that
surface elevations from west to east, and north to south drop approximately
30 feet over a distance of approximately 1,200 feet. The land form then levels
off into a plateau. It is also noted that these steep slopes direct surface water
and ground water from west to east and from north to south in this area. It is
likely surface water infiltration from over a 50-acre area contributes to the
groundwater elevations in this problem area. (See Appendix B for ground
surface profiles and Appendix C for a watershed map)
• A review of precipitation data indicates that years in which most of the
problems were experienced (1987, 1993, and 1997) had total annual
precipitation values of 32.16, 32.21, and 34.43 inches, respectively. As can
be observed on the attached precipitation tables included in Appendix C,
these three years had rainfall amounts that were in the top 20% of all annual
rainfall events recorded from 1836 to 1997.
• A review of typical evapo-transpiration, surface runoff, and infiltration rates
for open space areas in central Minnesota indicates that typically, 76% of all
precipitation is taken up through evapo-transpiration, 22% is directed to
surface runoff sources, and 2% infiltrates into the soils. Based on this
equation, if 30 inches of rainfall occurred in a given year, only 6/1 Oth's of an
inch would be anticipated to infiltrate into the soils. If we were to assume that
this infiltration rate in the vicinity of the skating rink would triple, increasing
the amount from .6 inches to 1.8 inches, the 1.2 inch increase in infiltration
over the 140-foot by 80-foot skating area would add approximately 8,400
gallons of water to the ground water. At an average pumping rate of 10
gallons per minute, which approximates many submersible sump pumps, a
single sump pump could pump this water from the area in approximately 12
hours.
• A review of park maintenance practices indicates that the City has not been
irrigating the turf on the Jefferson Park area as a routine practice. Preliminary
F:\WPW M1000.33\062298-res
Residents in the 6700 Block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue
City of Richfield
June 22, 1998
Page S
2) Waterproof structure utilizing waterproofing materials to prevent water
from working its way through porous block, cracks, or the basement floor.
Although this alternative has been attempted in many areas, it is not
considered a reliable fix as concrete is a porous building material and as such,
past attempts utilizing this methods have proved only partially effective in
most cases.
3) Install a regional drain file system to lower the water table for the entire
area.
This option consists of installing lateral tile systems throughout the boulevard
areas, along with a centralized pump to lower the regional water table so the
elevation would be maintained below the lowest basement floor elevation in
the study area. Although this option has the potential to correct many of the
problems, no guarantees could be provided that the zone of influence of a
drain tile system in this area would be adequate to protect all of the structures
experiencing problems. The only way to provide this assurance is to install
a drain tile system immediately adjacent to the footings of the structures. The
cost associated with a regional tile system would significantly exceed the cost
of installing tile systems around the structures experiencing problems.
4) Install a well point dewatering and/or irrigation system for Jefferson Park
to reduce the impact of infiltration through soils in the park and/or areas
up gradient of the park property.
This option could be utilized if the City wishes to construct a private
improvement to address the property owners' concerns relative to stormwater
infiltration occurring within the park property. It should be noted it is my
opinion the updated park design has not caused the problem, and if it did
contribute to the problem, the magnitude or frequency of the problem would
only be extended to a very minor degree. It is also noted that the current park
grades appear to constitute a reasonable use for the park property. For the
above reasons, we believe the City should not feel obligated to construct this
improvement unless they believe the improvement represents a win/win
scenario.
•
F:1WP WM 1000.33\062298-res
Residents in the 6700 Block of Sheridan Avenue and Thomas Avenue
City of Richfield
June 22, 1998
Page 7
area of at least 3cto 50 acres to the west and 10 to 20 acres to the north of this study
area.
The impact of the grading activities on the park over that of the park in its pre-1992
condition indicates that the area in the vicinity of the ice skating rink has the potential
to increase infiltration over that which previously could have occurred in this area
(.25 acres) but that the remaining 4.75 acres of park area should not contribute
significantly greater amounts of infiltrated water to the groundwater table,
particularly after the park has been utilized for a few years following the park
reconstruction.
VII. Recommendations
In order to address the wet basement problem in this area, it is recommended drain
tile and sump pump systems be installed at the foundation of structures experiencing
problems. The other options identified within this memorandum may have the
potential to reduce the magnitude or frequency of the problem, but do not have the
ability to provide the level of assurance for a dry basement that the foundation drain
tile system would provide.
I hope this information assists the homeowners and the City in reasonably responding to the
problems that are experienced in this area. If you have any questions concerning this
information, please feel free to contact me at 512-9854.
nm
•
F.1 W P W M 1000.3 3 \06229 8-res
APPENDIX A
LIST OF ATTENDEES AT JUNE 2ND, 1998
0 PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
•
WSB PROJECT NO. 1000.33
APPENDIX A
•
List of Thomas and Sheridan Avenue Residents In Attendance At June 2,1998 Public
Information Meeting
Name Address Phone Number
Ray Frounfelter 6709 Thomas Avenue South 866-2820
Sig Larsen 6729 Thomas Avenue South 866-0836
Terry Garrity 6721 Thomas Avenue South 869-2921
Judy Regenscheid 6725 Thomas Avenue South 869-7048
Tony Weiland 6733 Thomas Avenue South 866-8096
Shell Mechl 6713 Thomas Avenue South 869-2095
Kevin & Kathy McKeon 6717 Thomas Avenue South 861-6988
Jo & Pete Penoncells 6708 Sheridan Avenue South 869-6657
Susan Rosenberg Council Member/City of Richfield 866-2683
1]
•
FAW P W I N\1 00033 WW298-mt=atmden.wpd
0-
0
•
WSB PROJECT NO. 1000.33
APPENDIX B
GROUND SURFACE PROFILES
APPENDIX B
•
•
•
d
0
L-
a.
m
m
cn
t
ti
CD
a?
0
a
ca ,
?o
?I
I
Ire
e,
os,
s?
o1
ss
s!
OI
OS
S!
ss
s!
w
d
s!s! u
o
s!A o
d
09?1
3
O! _
d
0!e! C
N
S?1 iA
O! ?
09
O!
S6
6
00
G
oe
8
S?
0?1
c
og
9
O?
9
00
S CY)
0 C) C) 0 C) C) 0 C)
obi 0 0 0 co 00 a r 0 0 00 0 co 10 co 00
1ea=1 ul UOIIBA013
•
•
APPENDIX C
WATERSHED MAP
WSB PROJECT NO. 1000.33 APPENDIX C
N N ll, ~ \t = ~ XfRXES AVf.
~ +SyBURM li HBUR l) S. ~ M BURN AVE. S.
~ C1R. - V/NCFN ~ ~ „ AVf i i S. m i ~ t V/NCEN AVE. S.
~ ~ LIPTON = ~ AYE. S. ~ ~ LIPTON AVE. S. i ~ v ~ N
TNOHAS ~ THONA ~x rr' N AV - ~ ti a THOHA c AVE. LA. ~ OAM wr„~v~ ~ c 0 o n ~ S. v : q ER DAM SAVE a CJR S. CUNBfR
' k q ~ v ~ ~ RUSSFL AVE. S. RI(NNON Cy
n ~ ~ „ RUSSFL A S. " e. ~°:OUfF AV ~n
v OUEfN u~ ~ AVE. 5. ~n N f, 5 a OU£FN AVE.
1 ' f. ~ S. ~ a ~ PE AVE. 5. '
! OL/VE ~ S. a ~ O U VfR AVE. 5. v w h _
~ x Nfb'TO a S. ~ - ti' NEW10 AVE. S. } ~
c ~ RGAN Yf. ~ ~ S. r~+ o HORGA
~ « LDGAN ~ ~ a V'N " AVE. ~ ~ S. ~ LOGAN hAVf. S.
ti ~ i ~ yE ++r~~~r,9 S ~ ~ .rNOx ~ AYE ~ 5 . ti
O T / ti 4 ~ ^ 'o JANE = AV~, = i S. _ ~ i n JAMES i
~ i -r c ~i L lRV/N i ~ ` ~ ?r HUHBOLDf Ay a / VIN AVf o S ~ w 'P.~J,s '/c
AVf . - ~ UN BDLD ?AVF. ? S. ~ „ ~ HUH BO[Ol
_ in Gy IGlRA / NUH ~~A VF. S ~ ~ y ARO AYE. S. D ~ 'Pif /RAR
_ ` ~ ~ M
FRE HONT fR HONT AI'F, 5. - FR fNONT ' r FH fRSON ~ v E AV F.., X R t AVf. = S. ~ i ~ O ~ ~ tr N fRSON ~
DUPON A " ~ M AVE. S. ~ ~mm O q DO o ! 4 ~ ~ ? ~ DUPON } a AVE.
ao = ~ ~ CDLf NAVE. ~ o ICI D ~ A : o ~ COLFA AYE. > n r ~ 'r
~ I ~ n BRYAN ~ AVf # S. ~ ~ O ~ ~ I ~ n °~J o, ~ BRYANT ~ AVE. ~n , V E 9 ~ ~ ~c > o ~ ~0 " a AL DRJC ? AI'C. 5. VO ~ V1 G o n~i ob AL
V C
~ ~ LYN DALE ~ ti AVE. ~ ~ ~ AV£. _ t G BURGZ Vf. a, i w = GA F/EL0
~ e ~ ~ R flfLO! AVE. n S. ~ G ARf/ ~ R 1r HAR R/ET AVE.
~ = A R/ET ! O ~ AVf. r S. „ ~ _ ry'IVE °p ~n ~ M1 ~ i tiNi r
H GRAHO ~ O AVF. S. ~ ~ ti GRAND ~ "AVF ~ °'N S. ri i o. DRANO AVf.
~ ~ PLEASANT ~ AVE. 5. n O O L E M. PLf SA =AVE R, S." ~ c o C O. ~ PLfA SANT AVE.
P/L ABU PLfA ANT AV E. 5. AVE. S. PILL BURY o AV f.l PLE SANTS AVf ~ ti ~ u t PIIL BURY AYE.
~ ~ ENT iVORTN ~ ~ ~ AVF N, 5. - MENT MOR1N a AV ~ S ~ ~ ~ MfNT MORTH AVE.
A! DELL ~i AV h 8LA/ DELL AVE. w I ~ ^ ~ ~ S. ~ ~ v ti 8LA! OFLL AVE. w
ti N!C - _-M' H S ~ a AVf.
1st ~ AVF. ~ Z " ~ ~ ~ 1sr AVE. S.
a~ _ b ri STE VFNS AVER `4W S. ~ = T ` ~ STfVfNS = AVE. S.
(~~S') ? ?nd AVf~ :Ni " ~
~ ~ 3rd vc ~'7 S ~ _ 3rd AVE. ~ ~ Ind AVE. S. A. - M T o N wvE.
.e CLI TDN F. ~ ~ S. °.o CL /N ON AVE
~ v t?n f. ~ 2 ° crn AVE. S ~ ~
h ~ ~ y ti SJh Srh AVE. ~ S.~ ~ Srh AVF. S. - ~H
AYF D I AVf. ° i POR/ LANG 1AVE. ~ D
OAK LANG AVf ~ ~ OAK LAND V
~ ~ ~ AVF
I PARR AVf ~ S " ~ ^ ~ " PARK u' 71.F PARK
I q a COL UH,94JS w ti AVf. o ~ ^ ~ ~ ~ I } ~ T s. a COLD BuS AVE. 4~~~ Q COLUH S ~ 1--1 6 a e, ti CH/LAG T
j ~ CAGO a AVf. ~ ~ ' S _ ITI O ~~0~ ~ ~ T
1 e I N EL[/0 ~ VE. r 5 ~ o ~ a ~ FCCIOT r n
~ ~ ~ ~n ~ N
x N 11t i AVf. ~ S, ~ I ro a s
~ ~ I I I A V 5. a a N v
13rn ~ AvE ~ _ S. I r ~ 131h AVE. ~
~ r<rn Avf. ~ S ~ r<rn AVF 0
H SAVE. I y°', Isrh AYE. ~ y ~n 2
I ~ BLOOM GTON AV - ~ S ~ a ~ Zo BLOOM /NGTO y,~~d
Vt I ~ ~l,~0 ,j~ ~4Vf ~ ~ ~ ~ 16)h AVF.
yi ~ 1~ _ ~ AVf. v S. ~a a ~+1 x ~o
b ° IBIA w vF. S. ~ I idr ~ ? giros
CEDA ~ S, ~ ~ AYE. y s ~ CEDAR
- ~ a ~ -
a ( ~ ~ ~ AVE. 19 S. `LONGF LLO A~2E`. S ~ L ONGFEL ON AVE.
20rA A S. ~ 10rh AVE.1 rA AY f.
?IsJ I AVE x
a Ilsr AVE. f . '"S I
?1nd AVf. 'boo O ~ VF. ST NO15H AVE.
O
~ 1 I I I 13r AYf_~S_~\ 13rA AVE. S. 1 I I/ „ ~l1 I
z ~ 8 8 Z I I I ~ a?<th AVE. S.
TTl I I ~ r ~ 15 f A AVE . ~ ~ T n a I1I
D C4 N Zll ~ ~ N -D N p (/1 ~ C7 ~ p N V1 ~ 8 c ~ rno r ~ ~ ~ oc~ ~ o oc oc m
~ ro ~0 0 00 o cooo z cap mop Z o o ~ ~v ~ z~~ o z~ z~ p
C ~ ~O ~ pD0 DD -1D m Er1 ~7 r p Vf D ~ N t~ D -i -i =
~ D Cn D D N rn Ln ~ m rn O ~ rn 'r1 TT1 o m ~ ~ ~ m p rn ~ p c ~ ~ ~
r- m 8 om ~ m m i o = D=
~ ~ ~ m n m m
0 0 ~ o ~ o m m Z Z ~ 8
Orr ~iO1°'' ,,,Q ..owani a ie~an
schelen CITY OF RICHFIELD Mayeron & ,,...,.....s.~,., ~F,I GURE . 3 . . _ .
Associates, Inc. COMPREHENSIVE SURFACE WATER T~.
APPENDIX D
AIRPORT PRECIPITATION DATA
1836-1997
WSB PROJECT NO. 1000.33 APPENDIX D
N r CA ?? ?? t? 0) ?? 0 0 CO O O N ? h CA CO N O CD O) M M r O) to sf tD O r 0 to r
O 1? r r (O r N CM r CR r q t0 O Vt O h t0 O O O Of N ti CO r M t0 t0 O N et
et h ? M r M M O t0 f0 r M CA t0 M t0 C (0 A N N t? C O O l0 ? O? M r to r N?
N N N N N N N M N N N N 'd' N N r N N N N M N N M N M r r M N M? M M M N i
c
M y to n M" O 1'- O W- 0 O t0 'tt M W)- IT n r 0 O 0 r O t- Or O M CC) t0 V O M v
CO M V' O r 'Cf g N O O N O tT CA O O 7 r (p Cp O O) O h st r M Mr*-? r M O t0 0? CO r (O
0" Or O r 0 0 0 0 0 0 Or 0 0 0 -0- N N r O 0 0 r r O N O -0 QC) r 0
U
N
V
00 M OD
Lf)
O
0
0
O
N O N M
? O
??
?
t
(
U
0
0
? M? CO N"R ? lo: ? st O t`O? M N U
0 f l
N O t
q
7 q
O r O r M O M r O O N ?- 0 r r N 0 0 0 N r t0 r NON O O r O N 0 'ct O r N r
O
Z
t0 t0 (0 r r t0 O O h CO l0 ? O l0 N CO N r M 0 ? O O O ? O (O ?t O O A N N t0 r? t[')
U0 r r r N U( O t0 O CO q: M O M M r CO O N O) O O (O d; q CO O er q q q q q q t0 M st
O M O N CV r O C 0 0 N O O t0 C r O O r O M C r O? N r r r (V r 0? O N N C
0
O O O r r M O M? O r M O O O N N V O O N O h M N h O M? O O O N O O O O
M t0 r t` O M r W r N N M 0 ih h COo fD h r tt') N NVr Cp ti Cp CO N r O r fD OVO N O
O et 6 O r N 6 4 O tt N N 4 CV N r M 6 (V CO 6 M N M M V' N N N 6 N r 4 N M
a
(D
U)
t0 N O V O 1- r et h 00 O O O O r- 0 0 1%- W) r 0 M CO N O 1• CO to 0 CO IV N r N O co
M t0 M O O lo: r CID CD M N CO 'tt r (p q N CO t0 h 0 0 r P,: CO O t0 r O r 1` t.- CO 0 qT 0
CV) U) r CO) r C'M IT r V cM CO) N M 0) N CO) 0 N r V r CV Cl) N 0 N It M N CA L6 N N
(0 t0 CO
r
s
??
ce) Co
(
0
0
d Q r
co M O O 0) ti CO O) O co t0 (0 O O) t0 O t0 N N r t0 O t0 t0 0) t0 M Cl t0 (3) O O t0 t0 M N
v N h r U0 CO t0 h O CO t0 q Cp Cp t0 r CO CO q Cl st Cp 1_? 0A h (O r (p q t0 to qq: O O CO O N
tY f- CV M CV r r N V CV It M V f- (O N N r M r N O M N r N O O V CV r t0 M N M r tp
O r `-
?
.
CO
W co O O of CO) N O O CO M v N U) CD O) r O (0 V O O CO CD N N N t- V M U) CO O h
s: t4 CO t0 N h N CO r (p O r Cp r O t0 M M h ti O d q CO Cp O CO ti N N N l0 t0 rqo:
t Q? n M It r M V CM tC) r CO M N CV Cf) V N O r- M N O (0 M tt) tp V CV 0 r (C h 0) V M r M M
O
J
' N
O
M
?
M t0 t() O r O CO N O r O CO CO f` h (0 N O O CO) N t() r t0 l0 CO M t- O M N W) N CO
? (0 O N Cl) t0 (p r tO t0 O O N t0 t0 Q) 1- O M N CO O er 0) O M C? O V N O CO C? t0 to r M
N N M M N r r c-; r N -t t0 (O O M st st st r r N C'O et 66 r N O 4 O C'M 4 N M M 4
O
N
r
r ?
q r t0 r r LO O 1- t0 (0 (O O U') CO N O CO 0) Cl) r CO 1- t0 0) O N O 1?- O CO 0) 0) r r r CA O YO
?+ N 0) V 1- t0 V- h r r C) V r (p CO CO sf 1- LO N IW N h t-- C) W) (O CO U-) N U-) V O M r O h
v O N N r r N 0 t0 M N O O L6 N N N O N O 4 4 M r N N N O O 4 N O N r r t0 r
aF. Q
LO M W) r to M N h O r V r r (M M V N CM t- N M N M V 0 0 t- CD O h CO O 0 0 0 O
CO) M r h CO IW 00 O CD t- V f` r N N O O O CO N h N M O r O) 0) N r O N 0 0 O O r
O O O O r 0 0 0 N r O r 4 N r CV Orr O O r CM r O Orr N r r O O N `4 N
^^
i
? ?
ff
^^ ?
V•
t0 CO (0 O r N 0 N O M r M r M M V r M r CO V M O t0 V 0) M O O O t0 t0 O CO CO W)
M h M ? N n. ? t*-: it q r r O CD r r 0 0 ? r CA h t0 r 0n t0 O CO CO r 0 t? CO t0 N?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . OR .
.
.
O O O O O O r O r O O r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r r O 0 0 r O r r N 0 0 0
`
Q LL
1'- 90 It O V t01000)N ONOt-0CO ONr- 0) 00r- O V'tO toNOD t0t0LO CO CD t0NO
O N (0 Mq1t N O r t0 q1t t0 N O O g N O O t` (p O'T CO O 7 M M r g 0 O (0 q q r (p M
(n 00-0(D0 0000 e"rO0 00?0 V) 0 O0 0 0004 0CM?0
a
c
H
CD +
M CO CO 0'
00 Cr 00 00 OD 00 CO 00
CO 00 00 00 CC 00 CO 0
CD 00 00
CD 00
00 00
CO 0>
00
co
co co
co CO
aDaDao CO 0DaoOao00aDO0aDO CO 00aDOaoaDaoOD OCO OOCO CD moDaoCD COaoaoaoOOO
00
? r r r r r r r r r ?- r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r ?- ?- r r r r r r
J
a t0
I?MI?tAODI-COP-004 CDLf) Cr) 'TV10 'NM 0)0v-0) o01 ?0CD to 0)LA
CO f` O CD M 0 N tO O CD t? to /? e- M I- OD h 0 CD V: CO M O 0 CD M O - N V: M .- 0 0 ?-
tn M 0 O M tD N V' N CO 1` CO O) N O CD CO T W 0 N O CD to V' IT N N CO Cv) M CO 4 O) ? O
M M M N N N N N M N N N N N M M ? N N M N N N M N N N M N M M M M M N M N ? V'
O N 0 0 M N IT to ? N. ? 0 t- O- O CD CO M a- O 0 n M t- t- F-- 0 ? V• - (0 0 0 M CC) .- to
M O (0 CO O M N h CM 0 Co M Co M CD 0 N r r t? V V. r tO r q Cl Cl 'CI: CO (O (O O t? to Cl Cl Cl O)
to to r O - O CV O G N ? N O V- M C C5 M G N 0 0 C G- 0 0" 0 0 0 0 0 s- (V 0
MNCOMN??OOOCDCOOCO0t0O0h MOOOOOOOr O V'.-OtiNON V' 0to
O ? CO 0 V; M N tO N 00 t0 (O O? CD V: O M CO ? ? '? h CO f` V: M CG O h C? ? O t0 h O f` to N
N?COr-N 60? 0 O0 ?OOCM0 ?OC??OOMN0 O?
W O O D N N N 0 S ? CC) h CO CO M 0 (O CO t0 ti M to r` t` N V ow V 11-Mot- O W N
O L0 O CO V' 0 to O O O) O 1- V V' 0 O V• CO V M O 0 CO 0 X 0 0 IT Cr) 0' 0) N N Cl CO V
MCV ACV M NC7M-r? MrrONOC7N?O" V'OM't0M4O 44Nr?NCV OM
t0 t? t? r r O O 0 0 t` 1- V t- CD N 0 to 0 0 N 0 CD t- M ?- ? O M ti 0 O V 0 ? O O M
N ? (O CD ? t0 Cn ti 0 ? 0 N N V: ? ? O M f` V: CD ? N M t0 CD Cam) O O ^ ? t0 V: N ? 0 to tO
N4CNCV NN?000.-:666 V ?OM?'-NT- V•N?O? t4M V hM(0t0vvNN10
M M- V N ? h t- O M h e 0 M h h 0 0 O T- O CC) N V O 0 h 0 V ?- N N O N 0 0 0
MV'toOOaoNt?ON V:0 t0M?NManrhMMOOCn(Or'tOCD?CO(OC+IMOOOOCD
M Mt?: 6 N.-?N V•NOMMN V N NN M466 6?N66csi6 V 0 V M00 M
0 V' N V' M M CD CD oD t0 M to N (O 0 t0 t0 O 0 ti (O O f` 0 f` ? to sr t0 0 CO N ? O 0 M V' N
0 t0 V: Cfl N V' V: V' V. CO to V. V' 0 0 0 CD t0 N M M N 0 t0 CO O N h O O N O t? t0 .
N N O CO) CO N N V' - V' N M to c) , N .. O V' .- V' N ? co V- CO t, V' M M 4 N t0 O V'
?- CD h M 0 0 ? O .- 0 0 0 ? O f` O M n V' V' M to h 0 0 0 M .- O O N ? ? tO M CD tt) V' M
0 0 to r- O O CC) CD 1` CO to C? Cl) q- 0 to 0 V; h M 0 0 0 0 0 N N O O CO 0 O CO CO N 0
tt 0 4 N 0 M V- V: M N (o 4 M a co N .- to M 6 M CV O N (0 CV (o N ? M ti N 4 CO N ? CO
O W N c0 0 0 ? X 0 0 M 0 aD 0 0 •-- t0 O h t0 O h O M t` ? t0 M E M O V' n M ?- V• to 0 0
CO CO sf CO O V; N ? tD 0 to 0 0 0 to N O O N (O to n 0 0 tr0 .- M V: u? M st M V: M O ? O M ?
?- V•
to?vi 6vM6Mv6NNCV 6C4 66 4T.6N4 N6 1; 6 6 6 144 6 4 6 CVC6 6
to cO M O N ao CD M 0 M M t` N t0 N M 0 N 00 N O tD t` O O O N M V t- r V v to
c0 t` h N V M CD (0 t0 CO CD h CD CO t` r tt) - V' N O CO W ? V: V: 10 h to h O CD f` N M O N CO to . 11
N O N CM N N O e O N CM ? N M M 0 , , N ? to v ? 0 a ?" O ,? ' N M O N 4 N O N
to ? N O M M N O N O N M V' ? ? m ti dD N h 0 N V' O to ?? O O V• O t0 'ct' M t0 CO a0 O 0 t0
O CO (O 0 to O f` Cn M 0 CO to t` V O CO "It 0 O t- 'It ti q (0 V: to CD M O lO t? t? t0 V: 'It q N
r.-N--?? ?O?OOO?ON e-??ONNONMe 04 -?0 N?000?00?
to NtnOONOOtnNNNMON?-tOOhrOMN V•Mhf`rt0h0t00t0tOa0 V'?0
to 0 V: CO O Ut h 0 V' V: 0 N M O N M N g MU? O V: `'- O V: CR O N E t0 ti M M h o 7 O CD
? O ? O O O ? ? N ? C N O O N ? ? ? ? ? ? O O O ? ? O O O O O O C O O O N O O
M 0 N 0 N 0 V V 0 0 N M 0 ?- 1,- 0 V 1,- 0 ti N 0 h 0 0 h N ? N M e- 0 M 0 h M V.,
wow" O? CD 7 0 V: O N t` M O q N 0 0 0 0 O tO CO O P t0 M N V: h 1A 0 V: C9 O ti
? 0 0 ? 0 0 0 C ? O N O O M ? ? ? ? O O C e= O O r' O O O O O O O O ? C O ? ? O
M V'ICYCOf`0000?-NM Vt0(O1`O00?NM V'tnCOf`000?-NM t0 f`0000?-
f`f`? tin hhOOCOOCOOOOOCD00000000000000?00000??
O CO O CD O CC) CO O CD CO O CO O O O CD O CO O CO O CO Cp O O CO CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CD CA to N CD ti to N 00 to .1?- to O r 0> r et 0 M CA tp M O P- CA O O O CO r w Cl ti M U') V r
N O r ti v W O r CM h 0 M V of r 1` CD r O M CO fl- 90 It to 1` to O Lo S O N W O CA r CO
N N M M N N N N N N N N 6 66M 66 N N N N N N6 N N N N N C6 7 N N N N N6 N N
M tp f` l0 O r r CD N f0 tp r M M OD r M CD t0 r N r M st O M? h N tp tp O tT r CO O h CA CA
O M 0 V h W O N r V M h V M v M O? tp t` N O t- M r-O O CD O O O v (O O CO m m
r O O C O O r 6 G O O O O O r CV O C O O r O r r r O O O r O C O O r C O C O r
O CO O N O CO CO M? O? ip tp M N O tp CO r 01 CO h CO O CO r O N tp tp f` ? O M N tp O N O
O? r f0 Cp O O h N to to ? Cp M CO to M M? N N tp M <D CO tp N O r O N CD r CA N 00 00 ? 00
C O O M O O v N r r M O C O r r C 6 (V M N O N O C O r 6 tp r O r N C r N r 6 6
M tp CO O O O r O O h r CA (O CD r O h ti? n O t0 ? to tO CO et O W N CO O CD O r O O N N
N to 11) tp (O h M CO h M N r h to CD M r r r Co O N O CD M O M to an h M N M tp r CO t? N
r N r N r r N r N O r r O O r N M N r r G r t o M O r O r r t D O r O O N r O r r
O N O I- N 0 to ? to to W r M tp O N t` r- V N to (D M MI'- V r r t` M r- co CO O ti ? CO
Up r ti tp V: r N 'It Cn CO r q't M r q r Up r t 00 CD q^ (O N M eh ei tp. V: O r Up 'V; O O V:
r? CV N N N r r r Ch N r M C0 l(') ? N M et N C M 'cf' r C r M N O M h N O N O r r N r
CO O O O CO M M CO et M CO CO tp O N r ? to N ? ? CA r N CO O to to ? t0 r to M (• M r ti ?' ?
to ? ti of CO CD f` CO r O CD ? M N ti r CO r f` O OD O CD O st r ? CD to t0 r ? CO N ? ? M CO CO
tor OpMrNMrrCV V-: rr.: 6 6 N6 N6 N6 r?"6 Met6 646 Nr6N6 (V MN?
COtohNhtDhCA0t0hNNMCAtOOMNNtOmOOr00mtpOOOOCA MCOO?r?
O r O N O O r (M r O r N Olo: CO (O M O r q r "t to r'It 0M nV: q CD h q r f? W g q h
h t? r to r? to CO r M r C'! r? 0'7 r M M O ? Q N r N C O M N N r cM (M ? st N C r (C cM
V r M r h M aet M r M V 0 0 0 i.- to r O CO 0 r 0 N M r CO to O O M M O r- O Co O ? co
0A N (O n CD 'R CO t0 O M ti h f` to N (0 ti to C? M CO N r 01 Cn r N O N CO M CO M tp f` N
CfV CD??MN V'CO('dtptp?d'MCCNetCOQrrN?Nt*iN?t`MN?COtphtc')NNr
O CO OW r- V N r t- O V f- M (O M N CO r M LQ L0 f- r r W)" t- to V r CC) h to O V t- 9 O t-
(O CO CO O O N M h O'q: CA O O g r N CM g q q O CD N CO N ?t q to CO 0A h N r 0 0 to h O CO
? (V r M CO ?? r fV M N CV r N r ('M lV r M r N t` O M N to CO M r N CD 'V' CO M M N O O N
N OM t- h Or V CO V t) MW r MM M" N O LO M f- N W N t- O r h r M V MM V ti M M
N CD (O CO O h to N O M g q N M IT M (O (O N r to M et q N r N CO '12: q N 0A (O tt 1` 00 r
N r M r CM r O M N N r r M r O N N r O r N r r N r N M N r r M O N N O N r r N
? M 00 M O V M W e h N - O h CM r CM M r CO O N t CO M O h r r CO ~ et r M O n M~ O
M(OCnOrh O CD (Or N CO IT O) M vt V IT rCO tD CD OrtOr h 1- 00 N 0) N V V MN
. .
.
O O . . N O O N N . . . . . r r. r o . rN . O r O r rN . O rN . rN O N O . . . . rO . r O rM N
O r r r r
0 V tp r N M 0 N 0 r to r M r 0 to r to CO O V ti 1?- r to CO N M r O to 1- O V 0 O h V CO
r t? st O M '14: to O V: to N of O '": Up M t/7 O O P. 1` ti r N tt) 'q: (O CD O CD 'V: Up r CC) r N C? r (0
O O O CV O O C N O O M O O O O O r r N O 0 0 0 0 r O 0 0 0 0 0 0 r ? r O r 0 0
sr N M P- M P- M M st V CO r 0 r V M O 0 M O O W 1` V h CO h it to r V M r 10 to I-
st V CD Cr) 00 tp M V CO V O O V tl to Cr) CO CA r t` CD CO it r- N O O M r O N CD n r 0 N
GOOrNrCCrOCr0OCCOrCC;rC]cirOrGrCOCOCO00C r
NMI tpCDt?COCAOrNM?lIOCO1?CDCAOrNM?tpCOf?CDOOrNM?toCD/?COCAO
r r r r r r r r N N N N N N N N N N M M M M M M M M M? e? ? et to
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
OI?rcor00000C0?Ml?h ???MOO? I?M?OOCO?D??I?I?M?ei(ON?OON
rl: CO CO 0 CD r 00 N O t` 00 U? C! O N CD ?r-: r r r Co OD N O t` N 00 CO CO r O M
M h C w h 0 CO r 0 C O) Co 0) ? Co h 6 0 0 Ch ? 0 Cn 0 V O r r ti O M 0 r' CO' N M C
M N N N N N N r N N N N r N M N N M r N N N N r M r M M M N N M M M M M cvkr N
r Co O M 0 O V r W M O CO O 00 M N tf) r Co M O 1--'O Co M r Co co M W N N M V O r Co t- N
N V t? M N N N N N Co 0 N CO O N O T N O V r- Lo r n r- U) r OD Cl) N C) N Co N N M N CO of
r O r O I O C7 0 r 0 r C C r r r O N CV C O r r 0 0 0 r C C O O d' r N r O r C C
N OD v r V to CO r M h CO N N 0 Woo v w N t- r 1` CO O CO N fit' O CO CO 1• M O N N h OW
r N to CO O Cl g O CO O O Co Co r g Cl O Lq Co CO CO r q CO OO r sr OR q N r N 0 N h q q CO M
N r r C r r r r O O r C O r r 0 0 0 0 C'7 N r r C? C r ? 0 0 N M er O r CNN r
?' r to M r to O Co M r C'7 M r h O M M N M h OD /? O O h M? 0 CO t0 O to r CO O ti O O M
? O r N N Cn ? to d' M O CO CO to M to ti CO Io Cn O ? N CO N 'fit M r r CO t0 ? CO V; f0 f` t0 t10 Co
r O O r N r r r N O M r D O O M r Co N 4 Co r r r C 0 N O M C N M CV to 6 r 0 0 0
O N 0 M 0 0 to M O 0 r 0 r- r O 0 M 0 0 0 M CO CD CD r N M P. O M CO O V 0 1` O CO 0 W
OJ IT M CO 0 t- CO O N 1,- O T V N 0) CO CO r V ?- f` 0) O Co M It V' N CD IT Co M CO M M N 1` N
o O O 6 0 0 r r N M M N C 0 4 r C CO O M N r N O r r 4 N N 6,;,: M N 4 6 r N r
CD to OD v N LO M O 0 w t- 0 N It O O M M M M OD to to N M r t- It 0 M O N 0 N qt h O N
0 r? O OD N h 0 t0 0 M ?7 Co ? O? f? h 0 r h? 0 t? 0 M M h O N? CO r r 0 `R tO N O
r v N M N 6 C 6 6 C7 N vi r 6 4 4 CV C C N T.; CV M N 4 0 6 r,: M 4 CO M 6 6 4 6 4 N
V CO r M O N r 0 O M V N M N M h O 0 Co M V N O V CC) Cf> N 0 V O 0 N f` M O r 0 f- O
?' Ln OO M r M M r O C? 0 r to O CO d' Ch tt O CO 0 r 0 r to ? h r M M 0? O O N r? r to
to st CO r h 6 6 C7 N T.; N Co V-: N 4 N r 6 N M M 6 N r O N m vi N N 4 O M M N v h r M
r
O OO O r M 00 N r? O t` O r O r r M O M ti N r t0 r 0 tD ? O M N N ? N Co M? Co N O
to 0 r f` M? r O O O 00 ?? r O Co 1C) f` O N t0 M O N 000 to O f` to ? '? N o r O) N Co
0mF--vr6 V N V MrrrN V vi tiCONrvi Oiruin viviP44wii rar-: c4 to ci6
O N? 0~ M O M 0 O M O v O O r Q 00 ^ '7 CO 0 r M O 0 9) O 00 0 l 0 0 O0 O
M
r CO 0 U? CO M r q O r 'd' O O v w V O h0 h r r V 000 r O0 h 9) N r 0 r NCO V M CO h M
et N r N 6 CV M r to M M CO 6 6 r r 6 6 V-: 4 M N N CV 6 N 6 4 C4 CV v m N M CM r r CM
co 0 v M N f-- M 0 d V 0 r h 00 N O h It Co N r 0 N N 0 0 V M CO M I- N 1` 0 r 00 CO 00 CO
O Co O U) O CO N Cn O M M O O Co 00 O 0) CO 00 r CO M V V OD 00 CO CO 00 r CO O 00 OD CO r Cn CO
r O N CM 0 Orr O N N r N N M O It N r N r r N N O O r M C O N r M CM r an O r N
O O r O N N r N 0 r r? O Co O O O O O M r )o N O t` M CO M ?o N r 0 N f` O M st tCy 0
OOCnr?oC?MMCpOD000?rC?1??000?ONNrOCO00COt?1nr1?ON et?;OCvNr
cn C r N C r r O C O N r r r 4 N C r 0 CV r r ?- r r N N C N ': C N 6 r v N O r N
r O M N V' O M sr .- N M h r CO 010 0 M r O? 0? CO O O M et' 0 h 'st M r? O? M O?
h N N M Co N CO N CO N CO O It a Co Co to r Cl) r h V CO O n M O N C? CO r V N CO Co OD r M 0
r r r O r 0 0 0 C O O N O C ? r r C O O r O 0 r 0 0 C 0 r C CV O r r C O C O r
to to O t? O N r r O O Co CO h t- Co M r Co h N V N t- N t` M W 0 V O Co 1• CC) t.- O M h N
? O Co N?? M N r CO N Co ? ep et O CO h O? N 00 M r CO 00 CO M O O Mel' CO O O O CO M Co
O r o a O O C C C C o 0 0 o C C C6 O N O r C C C N o O C r o C N C o 0 0 o r o
r N M to O t? O M O r N M Co t0 t` O O O r N M V' O CO ti O 0 O r N M Co CO ti M M
1o M Co Co tO O Co to CO tD 0 t0 CO 1- t- I- t- 1` r- r- f` O CC) O M O OO co co co co
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 M 0 M 0 0
r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r V. r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r
IA 1?1
W) C) 1- r- B
Ot0NCi
i co C) 0 N CA t=?}
ce
M M N M N N M
r tp to M) CO)
O O O Up Up
r r 00
U) O to ti O
tD N O to M
0 tri r - -
Cr) N O M
N to ?- f` tD
N N O V
000 sr N O r
r to to N IT
ti to to O
cM V CO N
f ?
O ?
N
tp N 0 to IT
N h co co O
00 t0 Co N O
O N M t0 Cl)
CO LO 04 -
M ccl r O N
M CC) IV N
O co O) O) r-
0 tf) O O ti
cl M . - M
Cp N tUA N M
M N - O
r- M h O 00
r O UC M r*-:
0 0 0 0
? t0G N r
0 0 0 ?
J
O ? N MIT
O O O O O
r r r r r
r
..?
Pete Willenbring
From: Greg Spoden [gspoden@soils.umn.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 1998 10:05 AM -
To. pwillenbring@wsbeng.com -- -
Subject: precip data --
Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport precipitation (inches)
Yr Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ann
1994 1.17 0.78 0.32 3.77 2.21 3.09 4.12 2.90 4.74 4.65 1.39 0.53 29.67
1995 0.36 0.25 2.11 1.90 2.43 3.38 2.72 4.59 2.21 3.68 0.88 1.15 25.66
1996 1.87 0.24 1.39 0.76 2.37 4.76 2.09 1.43 1.30 3.01 5.08 1.75 26.05
1997 1.710.30 1.18 1.01 1.70 3.7012.60 6.01 3.19 2.03 0.69 0.31 34.43
Greg Spoden
State Climatology Office
DNR - Division of Waters
S-315 Borlaug Hall, University of Minnesota
St. Paul, MN 55108
phone: (612) 296-4214
e-mail: gspoden@soils.umn.edu
http://www.soils.agn.umn.edu/research/climatology
•
1
APPENDIX E
SOIL BORING RESULTS
ALLIED TEST DRILLING
E
WSB PROJECT NO. 1000.33 APPENDIX E
•
0
.J
a
City Manager Mayor
James D. Prosser Martin J. Kirsch
November 3, 1997
SOIL BORINGS
A) Sheridan / Thomas area. (503-30-575-440.10)
(^1. Front yard 6741 Thomas. - 'rte 5 a
C,
2. In the park across from 6741 Thomas
3: Front yard 6729 Thomas.
4. Front yard be wt?een 6717 and 6721 Thomas. -
5. In the park across from #4 above.*
6. Front yard between 6709 and 6713 Thomas
7. Backyard 6725 Thomas. 66-__
8. Front yard 6708 Sheridan.
TOTAL=8
B) Washington Park. (101 -35-610-440.10)
1. South side of sliding hill.
2. South side of sliding hill.
TOTAL=2
. Council
Susan Rosenberg Kristal Stokes
Michael Sandahl Russ Susag
-Te"/ - 6 7a /
C) 70th St. ( 401-30-547-440.10)
1. Three spots, mid-block between Chocago and Elliot. (B-1, B-2 and B-3)
2. Two spots, 150 ft. east of 11 th Ave. north side. (B-4 and B-5)
3. Two spots, mid-block between 13th and 14th Ave's. north side. (B-6 and B-7)
4. One spot, 60 ft. west of 14th Ave. south side. (B-8)
5. Two spots, mid-block between 14th and 15th Ave's. One north and one south.
(B-9 and B-10)
6. Three spots, west of Bloomington Ave. (B-11, B-12 and B-13)
7. Two spots, 100 ft. east of Elliot Ave. one north and one south. (B-14 and B-15)
8. One spot, 150 ft. east of 11th Ave. south side. (B-16)
9. One spot, mid-block between 15th and Bloomington Ave's. north side. (B-17)
10. One spot, 60 ft. west of 13th Ave. south side. (B-18)
TOTAL=18
The Urban Hometown
An Equal Opportunity Employer
1
•
0
A Dl-- ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
. _ 4000 BEAU D'RUE DRIVE
EAGAN, MN 55122
Exploration - Evaluation - Foundation Engineering
(612) 452-6913
November 24, 1997
City of Richfield
300 West 78th Street
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Attn: Mr. George Atkinson
Subj: Sheridan-Thomas Area
P.O. No. 35731
Account Code: 503-30-575-440.10
Richfield, Minnesota
Allied No. 97190
Dear Mr. Atkinson:
This letter and the enclosed boring logs present the results of our drilling work in the 6700
block of Thomas Avenue South and at one location on Sheridan Avenue South in Richfield,
Minnesota. The borings were put down at the approximate locations requested to depths ranging from
11.5 to 30 feet. This letter and the enclosed information present the complete results of our drilling
and engineering work.
The Standard Penetration Test, (SPT), borings were drilled in accordance with ASTM D:
1586-84, "Standard Method for Penetration Test and Split-Barrel Sampling of Soils".As the samples
were obtained in the field, they were visually and manually classified. Representative portions of the
samples were then returned to the laboratory for further examination and for verification of the field
classification. Logs of the test borings indicating the depth and identification of the various strata,
penetration resistances, soil classifications and the results of water level checks are enclosed with this
letter. The surface elevation at the boring location was not measured and the depths shown on the
boring logs are with respect to the ground surface at the time of the field work.
At the boring locations, groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from 5.2 to 10.2 feet
as indicated by the presence of standing water in the hollow-stem auger cased bore holes and the
condition of the recovered soil samples. We understand that piezometer installations are being
considered to obtain additional water level information. The results of water level readings in
piezometers should be considered together with the results of the water level checks obtained in the
hollow-stem auger cased bore holes.
0 In general, fine and fine to medium grained sands were encountered overlying less permeable
clay layers at the drilling locations. Clay layers were not encountered in B-4 and B-7 which were
_SUBGRADE EXPLORATION
SHERIDAN THOMAS AREA
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
ALLIED No. 97190
NOVEMBER 24th, 1997
drilled in the front yard area between 6717 and 6721 Thomas Avenue South and in the rear yard area
at 6725 Thomas Avenue South to depths of 11.5 feet. The results of our drilling work may indicate
the presence of a "perched" groundwater condition. This might be confirmed by the installation of
piezometers at different depths in relation to the existing clay layers. Where it is possible to install
the screened portion of the casing in the sand strata underlying the clay with an adequate seal above
the screened portion of the casing, and in the sand strata overlying the clay layer, additional
information regarding the hydraulic flow regime could be obtained.
It may be possible to provide drainage improvements in the exterior backfill zones of the
existing structures in order to provide an outlet for water accumulating in these areas and to minimize
the potential for water infiltration into the below grade, (or basement), spaces. Attached is a sketch
showing some of the elements of a properly installed exterior backfill zone drainage system.
Particular care should also be taken with regard to positive surface drainage away from the existing
residences. Where losses of positive grade have occurred due to settling of sidewalk slabs in toward.
the structures, this may provide a direct route for surface water to enter the back fill zones. The
enclosed detail shows a clay cap at the top of the backfill zone with a minimum slope of 1/4" per foot
away from the structure. Additional factors may need to be considered in the design and installation
of an exterior drain tile system. Where possible, it would be preferable to provide a gravity outlet
for the drain tiles, (such as to the existing storm sewer), since this would eliminate the need to
convey the water into the interior of the residences and for the construction of sumps and the
installation of sump pumps.
•
Soil samples recovered from the test boring will be retained in our office for a period of thirty
days from the date of this report. After that time they will be discarded unless prior written
instructions to the contrary are received. I hope that this letter and the enclosed boring logs provide
the information required at this time. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 452-
6913.
ALLIED TEST D LING COMPANY
?? 0-j-
Mike Roach, P.E.
Soils Engineer
encl: Log of Boring B-1
classification chart
general notes
1 hereby certify that this plan, speci-
fication, or report was prepared by me or
under my direct supervision and that I am
a duly Registered Professional Engineer under
the laws' of the State of Minnesota.
ojkuL
u-4
Date - Registration No. 21166
2
•
•
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
PROJECT Sheridan/Thomas Area NUMBER 97190
Richfield, Minnesota Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE ELEV UG OF BORING 26 46 k 86
7
p J 2 TEST
c CONE PENETRATION -.TONS/FT RESULTS
w w v DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION PL MC LL AND
OF MATERIALS
X
N' VALUE
BLOWS PER FOOT OTHER
h 0 -
C3
10 20 30 40 .
1 SS ^ TOPSOIL: 2' SILTY SAND
fine grained with roots
A
^A •: ,
lj?d organic matter, black, moist, (TOPSOIL/SM) L
j
A" -
SILTY- SAND, very fine grained with a trace of coarse
^A ::. grained SAND, brown, moist, loose to medium dense
then loose, (SM)
2 SS %, 8
2.5 AA
A
A
A
A . •
,
5.0 3 SS AA
A"
A
A" .•
. II
7.5- 4 SS ^A
A"
A
" ;.
. 3
5 SS ^A SANDY LEAN CLAY with a trace of GRAVEL, g
10.0
"A
A brown, moist, soft, (CL)
6 SS ^A 6
12.5 ^A
A"
A
7 SS ^A 4
15.0 ^
End of Test Boring at 16.5 Feet
17.5-
6741 Thomas Ave S: front yard
20.0 ---- -- - -- ----------------------------------------------------- JJ -------- ------- -------- ------- -------- --------
WATER LEVEL CHECKS METHOD ASTM D: 1586-84
DATE TIME SAMPLED TO CASING CAVE-IN WATER m /4" HSA and 2" OD Split-Barrel
S
11-7-97 9:50 14.5 14.4 None a
pler
11-7-97 10:05 14
5 14
4 None STARTED COMPLETED
. . 7 7 1117/97
11-7-97 10:17 14.5 14.2 None DRILLER RIG
11-7-97 10:27 Out 12
6 12
0 DS CME-SS
. . DRAWN ROVED
11-7-95
14:25
Out
11.5
10.2 BY
MR M?
APP
t`
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
PROJECT Sheridan/Thomas Area NUMBER 97190
Richfield, Minnesota Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE ELEV LOG OF BORING
20 40 60 80
. ._ 0 - TEST
W ? Z
z
a
J CONE PENETRATION - TONS/FT RESU
L
m w w V DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION PL MC LL AN
to
a z
n.
ii
U
w
off.
?
OF MATERIALS
v A
^ OTHER
REMARKS
o
c a N' VALUE - BLOWS PER FOOT
10 20 30 40
TOPSOIL: 4' SILTY SAND with roots and organic
lb SS "A
^ :. atter, black to dark brown, moist, (TOPSOIUSM)
SILTY SAND, fine grained, brown, moist, loose, (SM)
2 SS ^" . • _ SAND, fine grained, brown, moist, loose, (SP) 6
2.5 nA
3 SS SILTY SAND, fine grained with a trace of coarse 7
5.0 "A
A
' grained SAND, reddish-brown, moist, loose, (SM)
4 SS LEAN CLAY with laminations of fine grained SAND 1
7.5 AA J
and SILTY SAND, reddish-brown, moist, stiff, (CL)
5a SS ^A LEAN CLAY with a little coarse grained SAND and a 14-
10.0- "A trace of GRAVEL, mottled brown and gray, moist, stiff,
CL
Sb SS (
SILTY SAND, very fine grained with laminations of
SILT, brown and gray, moist, medium dense, (SM)
End of Test Boring at 11.5 Feet
12.5-
6729 Thomas Ave S: front yard
15.0-
17.5-
20.0 --- --- -- -- ----------------------------------------------------- -------- ------- -------- ------- -------- -------•
WATER LEVEL CHECKS METHOD ASTM D: 1586-84
DATE TIME SAMPLED TO CASING CAVE-IN WATER 14HSA and 2" OD Split-Barrel
S
l
amp
er
11-7-97 10:50 9.5 10.6 8.9
11-7-97 11:00 Out 7
6 2
5 STARTED COMPLETED
. . 1117/97 111M97
11-7-97 14:19 Out 8.1 5.8 DRILLER RIG
DS CNilr55
DRAWN BY APPROVED p
E
•
•
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
PROJECT Sheridan/Thomas Area NUMBER 97190
Richfield, Minnesota Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE ELEV LOG OF BORING 20 40 60 80
'TEST
2
g CONE PENETRATION - TONS/Fr RESULTS
ua W
Z ? U DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION PL MC LL AND
G Z J m
a
V
a
OF MATERIALS
OTHER
REMARKS
N' VALUE - BLOWS PER FOOT
h
E3
10 20 30 40
Is SS FILL/TOPSOIL: 5" ORGANIC CLAY with roots, 6
lb SS black, moist, (FILL/TOPSOIL/OL)
FILL: SAND, fine to medium grained, brown, moist,
(FILL/SP)
2a SS ^" BURIED TOPSOIL: ORGANIC CLAY with SAND, 14
2.5 2b SS "" . black, moist, (BURIED TOPSOIL/OL)
SAND, fine to medium grained with SILT and a little
coarse grained SAND, brown, moist to waterbearing at
about 6.8 feet, medium dense to loose, (SP-SM)
3 SS ^" : 10
5.0-
4 SS ^" . 5
7.5 ^
5 SS ^^
10.0
End of Test Boring at 11.5 Feet
12.5
front yard between 6717 and 6721 Thomas Ave S
15.0
17.5
20.0 ---- ---------- ------------------------ -------- ------- -------- ------- -------- L --------
WATER LEV EL CHECKS METHOD ASTM D: 1586-84
DATE TIME SAMPLED TO CASING CAVE-IN WATER 3 1/4" HSA and 2" OD Split-Barrel
Sampler
11.7.97 11:15 7.0 7.2 6.8
11-7-97 11:22 9
S 4
9 7
7 STARTED COMPLETED
. . . 1117/97 11/7197
11-7-97 11:30 Out 6.3 None DRILLER RIG
DS CMIl55
DRAWN BY APPROVED
I
E j.
`R
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
PROJECT Sheridan/ThoMaS Area NUMBER 97190
Richfield, Minnesota Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE ELEV LOG OF B 20 4o
60 8
?? 0
O TEST'
Z
Z O
g CONEPENETRA71ON - TONS/FT RESU
L
ty u DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION PL MC LL AND
A z Q. w
n- S nE. OF MATERIALS OTHER
REMARKS
a N' VALUE - BLOWS PER FOOT
h v £3
10 20 30 40
I& SS ^" TOPSOIL: 1.0' SANDY ORGANIC CLAY with roots 14
lb SS and organic matter, black, moist, (TOPSOIL/OL)
2 5 2 SS " SAND, fine to medium grained with SILT, brown to
gray at about 13 feet, moist to waterbearing at about 7
feet, medium dense to loose, (SP-SM)
5.0- 3 SS 6
7.5 4 SS "" '• 5
10.0 5 SS 3
12.5
6 SS
15.0
17.5
20.0 7 SS
22
5
' SANDY LEAN CLAY with a trace of GRAVEL, gray,
moist, stiff, (CL)
25.0 8 SS ^" 3
27.5
9 SS ^" 1
30
0
.
End of Test Boring at 30.0 Feet
in the park across from 6717 and 6721 Thomas Ave S
32.5
35.0
37.5
40.0 - - -- ----------------------------------------------------- -------- ------ -------- ------- -------- --------
WATER LEVEL CHECKS METHOD ASTM D-. 1586-84
DATE TIME SAMPLED TO CASING CAVE-IN WATER 3 1/4" HSA and 2" OD Split-Barrel
Sampler L
0
11-10.97 11:33 7.0 7.7 7.0 -
11-10-97 12:10 28
0 29
7 11
7 STARTED COMPLETED
. . . 11/10/97 11/10/97
11-10-97 12:22 Out 3.6 None DRn i ER RIG
IDS DS CMIE-
Ni&55
Y
DRAWN B APPROVED
B
01
•
•
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
PRO'ECT SheridahMomas Area NUMBER 97190
Richfield, Minnesota Sheet 1 of `1
SURFACE ELEV LOG OF BORING 26 40 130
-> -- - -- - , . -- - --- - $'6 - - - . -.°.- - .. _ : -- Z
TONSIFT
CONE PENETRATION - RESULTS
w Z
Z v DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION PL MC LL AND
u
oz n, a OV px OF MATERIALS OTHER
a N' VALUE - BLOWS PER FOOT REMARKS
E3
10 20 30 40
la SS TOPSOIL: 0.5' ORGANIC CLAY with roots, black, 6
lb SS ^" moist, (TOPSOIL/OL)-
"^ " FILL: SAND, fine to medium grained with SILT,
brown, moist, (FILUSP-SM)
2 SS ww 10
2.5 ^w
w
3 SS ^^ : . 7
5.0 ^
w^
4 SS ^^ LEAN CLAY with a little SAND to about 9 feet, black 3
7.5 "w and dark brown to gray at about 10.5 feet, moist, soft,
^^
w
AA
ww
w (CL)
1.
5 SS ^w 5
10.0 ^
w"
6 SS ^^ SILTY SAND, mostly fine grained, brown, moist, 3
12.5 ^w loose, (SM)
7 SS ^^
15.0
End of Test Boring at 16.5 Feet
17.5
front yard between 6709 and 6713 Thomas Ave S
20.0 ---- -- - -- ----------------------------------------------------- -------- ------- -------- ------- -------• .....---
WATER LEV EL CHECKS METHOD ASTM D: 1586-84
DATE TIME SAMPLED TO CASING CAVE-IN WATER 3 1/4" HSA and 2" OD Split-Barrel .
Sampler
11-7-97 12:02 14.5 14.2 9.5
11-7-97 12:29 Out 0
13 7
3 STARTED COMPLETED
. . 1117197 11/7/97
DRILLER RIG
DS CME?55
DRAWN BY APPROVED M?
MR
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
PROJECT SheridanMomas Area NUMBER 97190
Richfield, Afiinnesota Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE ELEV LOG OF BORING
20 40 66 80
2 -. TEST
p CONE PENETRATION . TONS/FT RESUL
k: LU w v DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION Pl. MC LL AND
C Z rl O
? °? OF MATERIALS E3 --7n, OTHER
REMARKS
E
o d N' VALUE -BLOWS PER FOOT
h v Q
10 20 30 40
la SS TOPSOIL: 0.5' SILTY SAND, fine grained with roots 5
lb SS ^ and organic matter, black, moist, (TOPSOILISM)
" SAND, fine to medium grained, brown to gray at about
:. 10 feet, moist to waterbearing at about 6.5 feet, loose,
(SP)
I2ISS
2.5 1
5.0
7
5
7.5 - 4 I SS
oaf l I!? V I I I ?'?
at 11
12.5
6725 Thomas Ave S: back yard
15.0
17.5
20.0-j ---- L_----------------------------------------------------- - ,.,-------- L------- J-------- L------- ,-------- L ........
WATER LEVEL CHECKS METHOD ASTM D: 1586-84
DATE TIME SAMPLED TO CASING CAVE-IN WATER 3 114" HSA and 2" OD Split-Barr
S
11-7-97 12:50 7.0 7.2 6.5 ampler
11-7-97
13:05
9.5
8.3
7.3 STARTED
4 4 Am .. COMPLETED
„ ,.,,....
DRILLER DS RIG CME-55
DRAWN BYE APPROVED Mp
t
C
•
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
PROJECT Sheddan/Thomas Area " NUMBER 97190
Richfield, Minnesota Sheet 1 of 1
SURFACE ELEV LAG OF BORING 20 40 60 80
B-8 O TEST
m o 2
Z a g CONE PENETRATION - TONS/FT RESULTS
x
w W V DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION PL MC LL AND
W U.
az °• ? v a OF MATERIALS OTHER
a ? N' VALUE -BLOWS PER FOOT REMARKS
h
10 20 30 40
1 SS FILLfTOPSOIL: 2.0' ORGANIC CLAY with roots, 1
black, moist, (FILLlTOPSOIL/OL)
2a SS FILL: SILTY SAND, fine grained, brown, most, 5
2.5 ""
" (FILUSM)
2b SS
3a SS BURIED TOPSOIL: ORGANIC CLAY with n little 4
5.0 "
"^ coarse grained SAND, black to dark gray, moist,
(BURIED TOPSOIUOL)
3b SS
LEAN CLAY with a trace of SAND and fine roots,
gray, moist, soft, (CL)
4 SS " SAND, fine grained with SILT and laminations of SILT
7.5 to about 9 feet, brown, moist, (SP SM)
5 SS ^^ 5
10.0 ^"
End of Test Boring at 11.5 Feet
12.5-
6708 Sheridan Ave S: front yard
15.0
17.5
20.0 ---- --- --------------------- -------- ------ -------- ------- -------- --------
WATER LEVEL CHECKS MOOD ASTM D: 1586-84
DATE TIME SAMPLED TO CASING CAVE-IN WATER 31/4" HSA and 2" OD Split-Barrel
Sampler
11-7-97 13:30 7.0 7.7 7.0
11-7-97 14:05 9
5 1
9 7
5 STARTED COMPLETED
. . . 11/7/97 11/7/97
DRILLER RIG
DS CM&55
DRAWN BY APPROVED
j J&
E
Gct? O KyitFl-E!.-D
46 0
W W W
N N N
Noooo
_n
ev a
aav
Arty
C4 eV eV
c
Sr-I
b. :
r y
l
I
I
I ?•
6
r Y.
•4u,1s e 01- ?, lGO
Chi Pte".- t7
G=-h`{ G•?P W Rid FMS Ct 1V ?
r
?l
? ..1
E / d ? 7
ll , O b.
I
?J i
i LS Ste: ??-1 y:S
d I N??? ; :???t?eT aF '?:P?
D V-A\fA R -rb f. Nl l r?? ; caKr-i
II-Zb -`i7
-- - -- ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY ---
GENERAL NOTES
SAMPT TNG SYMBOT S
SS - 2" OD SPLIT - BARREL SAMPLE
FA - FLIGHT AUGER SAMPLE
HA - HAND AUGER SAMPLE
ST - 3" SHELBY TUBE SAMPLE
CONSISTANCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
NT - R T OW5 9/F'T' C ONSTSTANCY
2 VERY SOFT
2 - 4 SOFT
4 - 8 MEDIUM
8 - 15 STIFF
15- 30 VERY STIFF
30 HARD
CONSISTANCY OF COHESIVE SOILS
UNCONFINED COMPR.
<0.25
0.25 - 0.49
0.50 - 0.99
1.00 - 1.99
2.00 - 3.99
4.00 - 8.00
> 8.00
CONSTSTANCY
VERY SOFT
SOFT
MEDIUM
STIFF
VERY STIFF
HARD
VERY HARD
RELATIVE DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS
N - RTIIW S/FT RRIATIVE DENSITY
0- 3 VERY LOOSE
4- 9 LOOSE
10- 29 MEDIUM
30- 49 DENSE
50- 80 VERY DENSE
> 80 EXTREMELY DENSE
DESCRIPTIVE TERMINOLOGY - CORESIONT ESS COMPONENTS
COMPONENT SIZE RANGE TERM % BY WEIGHT
BOULDERS OVER 8" TRACE 1-5
COBBLES 8"- 3" WITH A LITTLE 5-15
GRAVEL 3" - #4 SIEVE WITH 15 - 30
SAND #4 - #200 SIEVE SANDY/GRAVELLY >30
ALLIED TEST DRILLING COMPANY
SOIL CLASSIFICATIONS SYSTEMS
Unified Soil Classification
- .: - ASTM: D 2488 - 84 - -
Group
Major Divisions Symbol Typical Group Names
COARSE- GRAVELS Clean Gravels GW Well graded gravels, Well graded gravel %%ith sand'.
GRAINED SOILS <5% passing
More than 509 No. 200 sieve GP Poorly-graded gravel, Poorly graded gravel with sand'.
More than 50`ao of coarse
retained on the fraction retained Gravel w/ fines GM Silty gravel, Silty gravel With sand'.
No. 200 sieve. on No. 4 sieve. > 12% passing
No. 200 sieve GC Clayey gravel, Clayey gravel with sand'.
SANDS Clean Sands SW Well graded sand, Well graded sand with gravel.-
<5% passing
50% or more of No. 200 sieve SP Poorly graded sand, Poorly graded sand with gravel. **
coarse fraction
passes No. 4 Sands with fines SM Silty sand, Silty sand with gravel. **
sieve. > 12 % passing
No. 200 sieve Sc Clayey sand, Clayey sand with gravel. **
FINE-GRAINED SILTS AND CLAYS ML Silt, Silt With sand', Sandv silt".
SOILS
Liquid Limit less than 50. CL Lean clay, Lean clav With sand', Sandv lean clays".
Cohesive soils
OL Organic silt. Organic clay.
50% or more SILTS AND CLAYS MH Elastic silt, Elastic silt With sand', Sandv elastic silt".
passes the No.
200 sieve. Liquid Limit more than 50 CH Fat clay, Fat clay With sand.
OH Organic clan, Organic silt.
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat.
Boundary classifications are designated by dual group symbols. For example (SP-SM), Poorly graded sand with silt.
* - More than 15 Fr sand, ** - More than 15% gravel
# - 155c to 30% retained on No 200 Sieve, ## - More than 30% retained on No 200 sieve
AASHTO Soil Classification System
Granular Materials Silt-Clay Materials
(35% or less assin No. 200 sieve ( > 35 % passing No 200)
A-1 A-3 A-2 A-4 A-5 A-6 A-7 A-8
A-I-a A-1-b A-2-4 A-2-5 A-2-6 A-2-7
Sieve Analysis:
% Passing
No. 70 50 max
No. 40 30 max 50 max 51 min
No. 200 15 max 25 max 10 max 35max 35max 35max 35max 36min 36min 36min 36min
Characteristics of
Fraction Passing No 40:
liquid limit 40max 41min 40max 41min 40max 41min 40max 41min
plastic limit 6 max NP lomax 10max llmin llmin 10max 10max llmin llmin
Usual Types of stone fragments fine pmt, lug
Significant Constituents travel and sand sand silt or cla ev ravel and sand silt soils cla ev soils organic soils
General Subgrade
Rating excellent to good fair to or unsatisfactory
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 36
Agenda August 3, 1998
Issue Statement:
Discussion of a new ordinance pertaining to tobacco and tobacco products which
contains a combination of State Statute mandates and items being proposed and
recommended by members of the Richfield Advisory Board of Health.
Background:
For approximately the last year, the Richfield Advisory Board of Health has been
working with the Tri-City Partners for Healthy Youth and Communities on Richfield's
tobacco ordinance. Tri-City Partners for Healthy Youth and Communities is a group
composed of City staff and citizen representatives from the communities of Richfield,
Edina and Bloomington working on efforts to reduce the accessibility of tobacco and
alcohol to the youth of their communities. The Board of Health's purpose in reviewing
the current tobacco ordinance was to ensure that Richfield's ordinance was in
compliance with State Statutes concerning tobacco and to establish an ordinance that
made access to tobacco and tobacco products more difficult for youth. It was
determined that the only reference to tobacco was in Section 1145.03, Subdivisions 2
through 6(b). The Board of Health developed a draft of a new Section 1146, devoted
• entirely to tobacco, and felt that Section 1145.03 needs to be repealed. The new
ordinance incorporates components of the old ordinance but new language is used to
conform to State guidelines.
The Board of Health and City staff sent letters to 45 currently licensed tobacco retailers
in Richfield, along with a copy of a draft ordinance, inviting them to a July 8, 1998
meeting hosted by the Addictions Workgroup of the Board of Health. The purpose of
the meeting was to make the retailers aware of the Board's work on the ordinance, to
encourage their participation and to receive their input on the ordinance. Only two
retailers attended the meeting: One was a City liquor store manager representing the
City's four liquor stores, and the other was a representative for Superamerica
representing their stores in the City. The Superamerica representative asked for
clarification on the use of a specific type of tobacco display and also voiced opposition
to a section of the ordinance that would require that all clerks be 18 years of age or
older. He stated that this would be a hardship for retailers as many of their clerks are
under 18 years of age, and he requested that this portion be re-evaluated by the Board
of Health. Board members thanked the two retailers for their input and said they would
take their comments under consideration.
At the Richfield Advisory Board of Health meeting on July 20, 1998, the Addictions
workgroup reviewed for the full Board what had taken place at the July 8 retailer
meeting. They discussed with the Board of Health the issues that were raised by the
retailers concerning a clerk's required age. The Board of Health, as representatives of
the citizens in the community and keeping in mind their goal of decreasing the
accessibility of tobacco products to youth, voted to present the new ordinance to the
City Council at the August 3 Study Session and will suggest repealing Section 1145.03.
Recommended Motion:
The new ordinance is presented to the City Council as information only at this time.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The Richfield Advisory Board of Health has been working with the Tri-City Partners
for Healthy Youth and Communities for approximately the last year.
2. The Board of Health determined that the current Richfield tobacco ordinance is not in
compliance with State Statutes concerning tobacco.
3. The Addictions Workgroup of the Advisory Board of Health presented the results of
their meeting with retailers to the Board and the Board voted to present the new
ordinance to the City Council Study Session for review.
4. Advisory Board of Health will recommend repealing Section 1145.03, Subd. 2-6(b)
and adopting the new Section 1146.
Alternative Recommendation:
• 1. The Council could decide not to present the new ordinance at a Council meeting and
allow the current ordinance to not be in compliance with State Statutes on tobacco.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
The ordinance pertaining to tobacco and tobacco products is presented to the City
Council for review at the August 3, 1998 Study Session.
Respectfully submitted,
Jams . Prosser
City anager
JDP:ds
n
0 1146 Tobacco
1146.01. Purpose. Subdivision 1. The Richfield City Council recognizes that many
persons under the age of 18 years purchase or otherwise obtain, possess, and use
tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices, and such sales, possession,
and use are violations of both State and Federal laws. Studies have shown that most
smokers begin smoking before they reach the age of 18 years and that those persons
have been shown to have several serious health problems which subsequently place a
financial burden on all levels of government. This ordinance shall be intended to
regulate the sale, possession, and use of tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco
related devices for the purpose of enforcing and furthering existing laws, to protect
minors against the serious effects associated with the illegal use of tobacco, tobacco
products, and tobacco related devices, and to further the official public policy of the
State of Minnesota in regard to preventing young people from starting to smoke as
stated in Minn. Stat. 144.391.
1146.03. Definitions. Subdivision 1. For the purposes of this section, the terms
defined in this subsection have the meanings given them:
Subd. 2. Tobacco or Tobacco Products. "Tobacco products" shall mean any
substance or items containing tobacco leaf, including but not limited to: cigarettes;
• cigars; pipe tobacco, snuff; fine cut or other chewing tobacco; cheroots; stogies;
perique; granulated, plug cut, crimp cut, ready-rubbed, and other smoking tobacco;
snuff flowers; cavendish; shorts, plug and twist tobaccos; dipping tobaccos; refuse
scraps, clippings, cuttings, and sweepings of tobacco; and other kinds and forms of
tobacco leaf prepared in such manner as to be suitable for chewing, sniffing, or
smoking.
Subd. 3. Tobacco Related Devices. "Tobacco related devices" shall mean any
tobacco product as well as a pipe, rolling papers, or other device intentionally designed
or intended to be used in a manner which enables the chewing, sniffing, or smoking of
tobacco or tobacco products.
Subd. 4. Self-Service Merchandising. "Self-Service merchandising" shall mean
open displays of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices in any manner
where any person shall have access to the tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco
related devices, without the assistance or intervention of the licensee or the licensee's
employee. The assistance or intervention shall entail the actual physical exchange of
the tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device between the customer and the
licensee or employee. Self-service merchandising shall not include vending machines.
Subd. 5. Vending Machine. "Vending Machine" shall mean any mechanical,
electric or electronic, or other type of device which dispenses tobacco, tobacco
products, or tobacco related devices upon the insertion of money, tokens, or other form
of payment directly into the machine by the person seeking to purchase the tobacco,
tobacco product, or tobacco related device.
Subd. 6. Loosies. "Loosies" shall mean the common term used to refer to a
single or individually packaged cigarette.
Subd. 7. Minor. "Minor" shall mean any natural person who has not yet reached
the age of eighteen (18) years.
Subd. 8. Retail Establishment. "Retail Establishment" shall mean any place of
business where tobacco, tobacco products or tobacco related devices are available for
sale to the general public. Retail establishments shall include, but not be limited to,
grocery stores, convenience stores, and restaurants.
Subd. 9. Moveable Place of Business. "Moveable Place of Business" shall
mean motorized vehicles, mobile sales kiosks, kiosks, trailers or other structure or
equipment not permanently attached to the ground operated in an establishment
licensed to sell tobacco-related products and conducted within a building and within the
licensed premises.
Subd. 10. Sale. A "sale" shall mean any transfer of goods for money, trade,
• barter, or other consideration.
Subd. 11. Compliance Checks. "Compliance Checks" shall mean the system
the City of Richfield uses to investigate and ensure that those authorized to sell
tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related devices are following and complying
with the requirements of this ordinance. Compliance checks shall involve the use of
minors as authorized by this ordinance to attempt to purchase tobacco, tobacco
products, or tobacco related devices for educational, research and training purposes as
authorized by State and Federal laws. Compliance checks may also be conducted by
other units of government for the purpose of enforcing appropriate Federal, State or
local laws and regulations relating to tobacco, tobacco products, and tobacco related
devices.
1146.05. Sale and distribution of tobacco. Subdivision 1. License required. No person
or establishment shall sell or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco
related devices without first having obtained a license to do so from the City of
Richfield. All licenses issued under this ordinance shall be valid only on the premises
for which the license was issued and only for the person to whom the license was
issued. No transfer of any license to another location or person shall be valid.
Subd. 2. Application. An application for a license to sell tobacco, tobacco
products, or tobacco related devices shall be made on a form provided by the Public
Safety Director or the Public Safety Director's designee. The fee shall accompany the
application. The application shall be reviewed and action taken on it by either the
Public Safety Director or their designee.
Subd. 3. Action. The Public Safety Director or the Public Safety Director's
designee may either approve or deny the license, or may delay action for such
reasonable period of time as necessary to complete any investigation of the application
or the applicant it deems necessary. If the Public Safety Director or the Public Safety
Director's designee denies the license, notice of the denial shall be given to the
applicant along with notice of the applicant's right to appeal the decision.
Subd. 4. License Term. All licenses shall expire on December 31 of the year in
which the license is issued. The annual license fee will not be prorated.
Subd. 5. Denial, Revocation or Suspension. A license under this section may
be denied, suspended or revoked by the council, after an investigation and public
hearing where the licensee is granted the opportunity to be heard, for one or more of
the following reasons:
(a) The operation of the business is in conflict with any provision of this code.
(b) The operation of the business is in conflict with any health, fire, building,
building maintenance, zoning, or any other applicable codes or laws.
• (c) The applicant or licensee has failed to comply with one or more provisions
of this section or any statute, rule or ordinance pertaining to the sale of
tobacco, tobacco products, or any tobacco related device.
(d) The applicant has committed fraud, misrepresentation or bribery in
securing or renewing a license.
(e) The owner of the premises licensed or to be licensed would not qualify for
a license under the terms of this section.
(f) The applicant is under the age of 18 years.
(g) The applicant has been convicted within the past five years of any
violation of a Federal, State, or local law ordinance provision, or other
regulation relating to tobacco products, or tobacco related devices.
(h) The applicant has had a license to sell tobacco, tobacco products, or
tobacco related devices revoked within the twelve months preceding the
date of application.
(i) The applicant is prohibited by Federal, State, or other local law,
ordinance, or other regulation, from holding such a license.
Subd. 6. Moveable Place of Business. No license shall be issued to a moveable
place of business. Only a fixed location business shall be eligible to be licensed under
this ordinance.
Subd. 7. Display. All licenses shall be posted and displayed in plain view of the
general public on the licensed premise.
Subd. 8. Renewals. The renewal of a license issued under this section shall be
handled in the same manner as the original application. The request for a renewal shall
be made at least thirty days but no more than sixty days before the expiration of the
current license.
Subd. 9. Employee Training. The applicant must provide proof that an
employee training program on tobacco sales has been implemented.
1146.07. License Fee. The annual license fee for a tobacco license is set by Appendix
D. The license fee must be paid at the time of application for the license.
1146.09. Prohibited Sales. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any person to sell
or offer to sell any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device:
(a) To any person under the age of eighteen (18) years.
(b) By anyone under the age of eighteen (18) years.
(c) By means of any type of vending machine.
(d) By means of self-service merchandising .
• (e) By means of loosies.
(f) Containing opium, morphine, jimson weed, bella donna, strychnos, cocaine,
marijuana, or other deleterious, hallucinogenic, toxic, or controlled
substances except nicotine and other substances found naturally in tobacco
or added as part of an otherwise lawful manufacturing process
(g) By any other means prohibited by Federal, State, or other local law,
ordinance provision, or other regulation.
1146.11. Vending Machines. It shall be unlawful for any person licensed under this
ordinance to allow the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices by
the means of a vending machine.
1146.13. Self-Service Sales. Subdivision 1. It shall be unlawful for a licensee under
this ordinance to allow the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related
devices by any means whereby the customer may have access to such items without
having to request the item from the licensee or the licensee's employee and whereby
there is not a physical exchange of the tobacco, tobacco product, or the tobacco related
device between the licensee or his or her clerk and the customer. All tobacco, tobacco
products, and tobacco related devices shall either be stored behind a counter or other
area not freely accessible to customers. Any retailer selling tobacco, tobacco products,
or tobacco related devices at the time this ordinance is adopted shall comply with this
subsection within 30 days of the passage of this ordinance. A license holder who
operates an establishment or fully enclosed portion of an establishment that sells at
least 90 percent of its products in tobacco or tobacco-related products is exempt from
the self-service merchandising provision if the license holder prohibits anyone under
eighteen (18) years of age from entering the establishment or fully enclosed portion of
an establishment and the license holder conspicuously displays a notice prohibiting
persons under eighteen (18) years of age from entering the establishment.
1146.15. Responsibility. All licensees under this ordinance shall be responsible for the
actions of their employees in regard to the sale of tobacco, tobacco products, or
tobacco related devices on the licensed premises, and the sale of such an item by an
employee shall be considered a sale by the license holder. Nothing in this section shall
be construed as prohibiting the City from also subjecting the clerk to whatever penalties
are appropriate under this ordinance, State or Federal law, or other applicable law or
regulation.
1146.17. Compliance Checks and Inspections. All licensed premises shall be open to
inspection by Richfield law enforcement or other authorized City officials during regular
business hours. From time to time, but at least once per year, the City shall conduct
compliance checks by engaging, with the written consent of their parents or guardians,
• minors over the age of fifteen (15) years, to enter the licensed premise to attempt to
purchase tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices. Minors used for the
purpose of compliance checks shall be supervised by the Public Safety Director or the
Public Safety Director's designee. Minors used for compliance checks shall not be
guilty of the unlawful purchase or attempted purchase, nor the unlawful possession of
tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices when such items are obtained or
attempted to be obtained as a part of the compliance check. No minor used in
compliance checks shall attempt to use a false identification misrepresenting the
minor's age and all minors lawfully engaged in a compliance check shall answer all
questions about the minor's age, asked by the licensee or his or her employee and
shall produce any identification, if any exists, for which he or she is asked. Nothing in
this subdivision shall prohibit compliance checks authorized by State or Federal laws for
educational, research, or training purposes, or required for the enforcement of a
particular State or Federal law.
1146.19. Other Ille. ate. Subdivision 1. Unless otherwise provided, the following
acts shall be a violation of this ordinance.
Subd. 2. Illegal Sales. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any person to
sell or otherwise provide any tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices to
any minor.
Subd. 3. Illegal Possession. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any
minor to have in his or her possession any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related
• device. This subdivision shall not apply to minors lawfully involved in a compliance
check.
Subd. 4. Illegal Use. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any minor to
smoke, chew, sniff, or otherwise use any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related
device.
Subd. 5. Illegal Procurement. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for any
minor to purchase or attempt to purchase or otherwise obtain any tobacco, tobacco
products, or tobacco related devices, and it shall be a violation of this ordinance for any
person to purchase or otherwise obtain such items on behalf of a minor. It shall further
be a violation for any person to coerce or attempt to coerce a minor to illegally purchase
or otherwise obtain or use any tobacco, tobacco product, or tobacco related device.
This subdivision shall not apply to minors lawfully involved in a compliance check.
Subd. 6. Use of False Identification. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for
any minor to attempt to disguise his or her true age by the use of a false form of
identification, whether the identification is that of another person or one on which the
age of the person has been modified or tampered with to represent an age older than
the actual age of the person.
• 1146.21. Violations. Subdivision 1. Notice and Hearing. Upon discovery of a
suspected violation, the alleged violator shall be issued, either personally or by mail, a
citation that sets forth the alleged violation. The alleged violator shall have the
opportunity for a hearing before the City Council before any penalty is imposed under
this section. A decision that a violation has occurred shall be in writing.
Subd. 2. Misdemeanor Prosecution. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit
the City, from seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any alleged violation of this
ordinance.
Subd. 3. Continued Violation. Each violation, and every day on which a
violation occurs or continues, shall constitute a separate offense.
1146.23 Penalties. Subdivision 1. Licensees. Any licensee found to have violated
this ordinance, or whose employee shall have violated this ordinance, shall be charged
an administrative fee of $75 for a first violation of this ordinance; $200 for a second
offense at the same licensed premises within a twenty-four month period; and $250 for
a third or subsequent offense at the same location within a twenty-four month period.
In addition, after the third offense, the license shall be suspended for not less than
seven days.
0
Subd. 2. Other Individuals. Individuals, other than licensees regulated by
subdivision 1 of this subsection, found to be in violation of this ordinance shall be
charged an administrative fee of $50.
Subd. 3. Minors. Minors found in unlawful possession of, or who unlawfully
purchase or attempt to purchase, tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related
devices, shall be given the option of participating in a diversion program rather than
paying the violation fine.
Subd. 4. Misdemeanor. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the city from
seeking prosecution as a misdemeanor for any violation of this ordinance.
1146.25 Exceptions and Defenses. Subdivision 1. Nothing in this ordinance shall
prevent the provision of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco related devices to a
minor as part of a lawfully recognized religious, spiritual, or cultural ceremony.
Subd. 2. It shall be an affirmative defense to the violation of this ordinance for a
person to have reasonably relied on proof of age as described by State law.
1146.27. Severabilityand Savings Clause. Subdivision 1. If any section or portion of
this ordinance shall be found unconstitutional or otherwise invalid or unenforceable by a
court of competent jurisdiction, that finding shall not serve as an invalidation or effect
the validity and enforceability of any other section or provision of this ordinance.
1146.29. Effective Date. Subdivision 1. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days from
the date of publication in the official city designated newspaper.
0
Richfield City Code 1145.01
(Rev.4-20-90)
Section 1145 - Soft drinks. tobacco
I1145.01. Soft drinks. Sdbdivision. 1. Definitions. For purposes of this
subsection the term "soft drink" means any liquid or compound commonly known as
a soft drink, which has either no alcoholic content or which has an alcoholic
content not in excess of one-half of one percent by volume.
Subd. 2. License required. No person may sell, or offer for sale by means
of vending machines or otherwise, any soft drinks within the city without first
obtaining a license from the clerk. This subsection does not apply to the sale
of bottled and canned soft drinks by means of vending machines.
Subd. 3. License application. Applications for license shall contain the
applicants name, residence and the location at which the sales of soft drinks
are to be made.
Subd. 4. Fee. The license fee is fixed by appendix D.
Subd. 5. Containers for Disposal. Establishments selling, distributing or
making available soft drinks, as defined in this subsection, in bottles, cans or
other disposable containers shall provide suitable containers for the disposal
of such.
Subd. 6. Maintenance of grounds and premises. Establishments selling,
distributing or making soft drinks available to the public shall maintain their
premises in a clean and sanitary condition and additionally keep all adjoining
and adjacent property clean and free from bottles, cans and other containers.
1145.03. Sale and distribution of tobacco. Subdivision 1. License required.
No person shall keep for retail sale, sell at retail or otherwise dispose of any
cigarette or any tobacco product or cigarette paper or cigarette wrapper at any
place in the City without a license. (Amended, Bill No. 1990-7)
Subd. 2. License application. Application for a license shall be made to
the Public Safety Director on a form provided for that purpose. The fee shall
accompany the application. (Amended, Bill No. 1990-7)
Subd. 3. License fees. The license fee is fixed by appendix D.
Subd. 4. Approval and issuance. The application shall be reviewed and
action taken on it by either the Public Safety Director or the council.
Applications may be disapproved only by the council. (Amended, Bill No. 1990-7)
Subd. 5. Licenses non-transferable. Licenses granted under this subsec-
tion are non-transferable.
Subd. 6. Cigarette and tobacco establishments: prohibited acts. The
following acts involving cigarettes and tobacco establishments are prohibited:
(a) the sale of tobacco in any form to a person under the age'of 18 years;
and
Richfield City Code 1145.03, Subd. 6(b)
(Rev.4-20-90)
?s
(b) No person shall :self- or give away any cigarette or any tobacco
product, cigarette paper orl cigarette wrapper to any person under the age of
eighteen (18) years. No person shall sell or dispense any cigarettes or tobacco
product, cigarette paper or Icigarette wrapper through the use of a vending
machine. For the purposes of this subsection, the term "vending machine" shall
mean any type of mechanical device, whether or not equipped with an electronic
or other similar locking device, which operates by the insertion of a coin or
other token, and which is designed to deliver, or permit the removal of
cigarettes, tobacco product, cigarette paper or cigarette wrapper. (Amended,
Bill No. 1990-7)