08-26-85 agenda j.~-/
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 324
Agenda August 26, 1985
The Honorable Mayor -
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Authorization to Request Bids for a New Computer
System
As authorized by Council action earlier this year, staff has
been working with DSM Information Services, Inc., to draft
specifications for a new computer system. In order that the
conversion from the current computer system to a new system be
completed by the end of 1986, it is necessary to begin the
bidding process in September, 1985• Consequently, staff is
requesting autriorization to advertise for bids for a new
computer system.
A summary of the proposed specifications and a schedule for
the advertisement, opening. and review of bids follows.
SUMMARY OF BID SPECIFICATIONS
The proposed specifications detail the city's requirements
for computing equipment, software and support. The
specifications prescribe a system with the capability to
efficiently and effectively perform the following functions:
1. Data Processing Applications - It is required that bidders
offer application software packages for Fund Accounting,
Budget, Accounts Payable, Payroll and Utility Billing.
Software for 12 other applications is requested, although not
required. These applications include Liquor Inventory and
Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance. Applications which cannot
be purchased will be developed in-house.
2. Word Processing - The City requires an advanced word
processing system capable of supporting multiple terminals
and printers. The word processing system must also be
capable of accessing and sharing documents from all
workstations.
3. End-User Application Development - The City requires a
method by which non-technical staff members can store
information, retrieve data and print reports. The commands
• to perform these functions must use natural language so that
staff with limited data processing experience can be trained
to use the procedures.
V~
-2-
• 4. Personal Computing - The city requires the capability to
perform personal computing functions such as spreadsheet
analysis,. scheduling, financial and statistical analysis and
office management.
5. Data Communications - The ability to attach on-line
terminals located in city buildings other than city hall is
required. In addition, the computer system must be capable
of communications with the liquor store cash registers, meter
reading devices, Hennepin County and the State of Minnesota.
The computing equipment and software must be designed to
operate in the existing city office environment and without
disruption cf present operations. In order to satisfy these
objectives, the specifications include the following
requirements:
6. System Operation - All equipment and software must be
designed to be operated by non-technical staff.
7. Multi-User/Multi-Tasking -.The equipment and software
proposed must accommodate multiple and concurrent users and
tasks. The system must be capable of handling additional
users and applications without degradation.
8. Menu-Driven Operation - All software shall be menu driven
and designed for on-line, multi-user operation.
9. Equipment Operating Environment - All equipment offered
must not require special air conditioning or electrical
service beyond that already installed.
_ 10.Initial Hardware Installation - The initial hardware
installation will include the following equipment:
40 Terminals, all capable of word processing
16 Printers, including letter quality and dot matrix
360 Mg Disk Storage
11.System Support - The successful bidder must provide
training for city staff members and on-going technical
support. Maintenance for both the software and hardware is
also required.
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
The fcllewing schedule fer the bidding process is proposed:
1. Publish Notice and Distribute RFP: September 11, 1985
2. Bidder's Conference: September 18, 1985
3. Bid Opening: October 7, 1985
-7y
v /
-3-
A
4. Com lete Staff Re
p vi..w of Proposals/Select Finalists:
October 14, 1985
5. Complete Staff Evaluation of Finalists:
November 4, 1985
6. Council Action to Award Contract: November 11 1 8
9 5
RECOMMENDATION
The com ut r
p e system specifications summarized above describe
the equipment and software necessary to satisfy the City's
information processing needs. It is therefore recommended that
the Council authorize the staff to advertise for bids for
computer equipment, software and support based on these
specifications. It is further recommended that the bidding
process follow the schedule proposed above. This timetable will
facilitate the installation of equipment in January of 1986,
thereby allowing the time necessary to convert from the current
computer system by the end of 1985.
Respe tfully submitted,
' t
/ ,
J ~
Steven L.~evijc~h L
Acting City Manager
SLD/eja
%
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council better No. 323
Agenda August 26 1985
The Honorable Mayor •
and
Members of the City Ccuncil
City of Richfield
Subject: Appointment to the Human Rights Commission
Council Member:
Due to several members of the Richfield Human Rights
Commission moving out of the city this summer, there is still
one adult vacancy to be filled on this commissicn. Interviews
with interested applicants have been scheduled for Monday,
August 26, 1985, beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the lobby conference
room.
Attached to this council letter are copies of applications
• from David Aslakson, Joel Johnson, Darold I,uze and Sharon
• Traxler.
It is recommended that the city council appoint ane of these
persons to the Human Rights Commission to fill a term which will
expire January 31, 1988.
Respectfully submitted,
a ~
Steven L. evich
Acting City Manager
SLD/eja
•
f
DATE ,c o
.CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION FORM
• ~ ;
~:.i,i,~
NAME ~ ~ Q VI ~ ~ ' ~ i~~ t ~ t~ rJ ~ ~€e'a of ~~m~~~;~~~+
~ ~ l 4~1
Last ~ .First - Middle
HOME ADDRESS ? -7 1 ~ - Q ~ ~ ' ~ / l
~ / /Ic.~ i` f'I ~ ~e-t-~G> , .,Bo f~ a ~ 1-a C l ~Y
PHONE Homeri-~~,-(D ~D Business 0 Z / " oz ~ O
APPOINTMENT ~~iP.t' C.R C~ 7
Advisory Board of Health. Human Rights Commission
Civil Service Commission Planning Commission
Community Services Commission Senior Citizens/Handicapped
Energy Awareness Commission Commission
Sister City International
Briefly list aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this
advisory commission and why you are interested in serving:
~,l ,,~n~,~ ~,~,o ~ S~,T~i . l~l,:.~,~~~,L2i ~ ~ i nEfS ~ ~2'~ ~O
0 \ r ~l~:a.j.Lf.LL
rE i ~E f l~1 SP_ C F i,cx+~' ~ vt f ~ F rf ~c: ~ ~ ~ ~r ~,l 'f~i~ .'~-f~~ f ~70l.~a FCC
a~ ~G_rf~r..l ve~~ in~~~cfc,/ ih ~~~EFS
J/ 7/// / J
Ill~n C ~ CF 1 \G~ ~ir~ ~G, P CZUc't'lc ri ~ l I ~ Z ei~l I!(hn c.>.~ / /I[` /c w u h c1 ,1- ~ C.~ %`t p cJ% G
CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTNITIES: ~-if~z~ns"'
!~`~'/llzC{~~321E~1~ ~P ~~N G (1/~/t..n~r?L~!- 1 l>i5~~/,• l.C~l~GI ~I~r Cy1,£3~1 /'Ci/~ ~i~~
J % _ ~
/ / _1 ~
r~~~ e~~~` y / ~i--tc~ / ~a~J~ ~~~T~~'~ ~S ~i (i~~~1 1~~ i ~.r~ J~~~ ^i~r'P,_f> ~ ~~f~-/J)
~ ^ u ~t/~
OS 1 Vf Iti~
REFERENCES (OPTIONAL) ~ ~c
, ~
OCCUPATION: ,/.SSi,~~u~-~f ///~~~u~v~~` o~ ~~I~P .7//~~rt`~ /-fh~ rjs.
,J
Return to City Manager's Cffice, 6700 Portland Ave., Richfield, MN 55423
Complete in Blaek Ink or Typewriter
IJ~'11G 1'.J~ `t'j~
CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION/COMMIiiaE APPLICATION FORM '
`f
NAME .~r~-+n1~ ~GN~t.~
Last rst Middle
HOME ADDRESS (o22~i CaRfl..~1EL~D f~U£.,tJU~. ~t~-t'~-1
PHONE Home_~jp(o - O I -1? Business ~ 1- '7355
APPOINTMENT PRrrr.nENCE:
Advisory. Board of Health Human Rights Commission ~
Civil Service Commission Planning Commission
Community Services Commission Senior Citizens/Handicapped
Energy Awareness Commission Commission
Fourth. of .July Committee Other
Briefly list aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this
advisory commission and why you are interested in serving:
J~A-?FJ . 'C +-1•~f_ ~cT o?= C._O~c~Q,..i c~lr~- ~,~,.LA-T ~P~ iJ5 tt~? LIC~I£C.~ ,
I u a-F~rZ-~ Q~cr Mil 1 _t~F._ ~ (.ItN, ~ 4 ?-i Pi~xl1 t}t~£_ ~G = H ~ll~ `~~E~
~rJ Uwe ~~N / ~ P.Sars a ~ • 2.~ e~-tS 1~,., ~ v ti t,~ -ro
GoN~rt~u~ tb~ c~~ r.+-4_
CNIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMbNNITY ACTNITIES: ~u>r -ro ~ MME ?NvoWED
'T}IE I.oCATawI ~ SfLt)i2drJC7 CSC M4 P~£SfeNT FbS?T~ini, = AM ~.oo~iaC-, Tt~ C~fs'
RrtNVOLVr?~ uJi~, ?~aG~E.SS~d.IAL ~ c~r+rav?.s~r/ PC.-n~tT~ari . ~tx,~ lS A
u sr olr' PRsr ac-rtt v'T i E s
etc~i~ ~ ,twn~ ?a?~-n2..y _5~ C~~F ~~gacs.._ ('_oa~.~ ~~rcy~l4,cv -~A6T~
. ~G£ ZATIONS @ r1oMU?~ it~14.:. G2~StIrtAe~ GP~c.,.:T~14~'ion3, STuDEnc7" "
CD1J(~RS SS . 1~.II.R . P1.~M•1 N~ tJ C~ Cc> r~h+?1 rf C}tpct~K?~~ . faRlllatSf. 4~L7r4A-~J !7_s(~TS C.o 1/I .d IT~f
Rrr r.xENCES (OPTIONAL)
~ I as ;Nl LV 1C.~ - ~ ~1~ ~ ~i N TYZn j~ . '1` Q~(~ I - '13 ~i
OCCUPATION : ~I IV Rives / UP'~~--r-t Q~~S cal A n~ - ~.iG-F~ l 'SA-N ?L £I .
?RUST ca .
Return to City Manager's Office, 6700 Portland Ave., Richfield, MN 5523 .
Complete in Black Ink or Typewriter
~ JaA~•i +i~-s R -+~2,~wx~
i M PR~t~v1~,t~T , ~-u S s ~
~ ~GE~T 2cQv t.5T1 r~l~ l~t< s~
t3~= ~c_on~N~iDRTt oN i ~ H- 2E~£P~vc.~,
- -
_ Lail: ~ - - ~ S
CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION FORM
NAME L ~ 2 ~ ~a ~ c~
Last First Middle-'
HOME ADDRESS ~!G n /fir-- r ~c1 ~ S~~
PHONE Home ~,/-3~~J~. Business .3`~C1- ~7/~
APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE:
Advisory Board of Health Human Rights Co*r¢nission
Civil Service Commission Planning Commission
Co~rmunity Services Commission Senior Citizens/Handicapped
Energy Awareness Commission Commission
Fourth of July Committee Sister City International
Other
Briefly list aspects of .your experience which you believe qualify you for this
advisory conanission and why you are interested in serving:
i
~v e ~7eeJ~1 r~,-,-, Q 5 Q c~~uJ / ~ . ~h fS /y~~sf~~~~r-
f J
~0 2 ~~~,.,p~,.~~ , ~v; ~h -fie 2oi.i.,4 C',~ , / .P~ i, ~c C,.,,N ,ss.•~ ~ Zees) U.S ,
~2~i1sc: J~.2~(5yrs) a,t ~h e U- S. o f ~.a ~or ~7y;
~ JNCIud~~q ~h~
/cSr ~yr5 ~N ~/NNC,SC ~Ig',, ~ f~l c/t f: LV ~ ~h l»y E~X~t'r~rSf Z C'vct /t.~ Ott Gi Vci lK ~6/t:
• CIVIC, PROFESS IONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES:
~c~5r /(~Cfji-~C~~Q~ l7ti`~S VO~~~tll rI.S~CJ~1tiN5 (~l~!- ~PasctG L.CC-'Q'~/VG(7G/,eCnC~[ 1.
,i I J
l~lc~~c'ld Cr~r•~S ~asJC'•tf ~~1r /7`~~Cra~.rn-, ~c?~ac1~
REFERENCES (OPTIONAL)
OCCUPATION : ~ a ~ Jor fUN~ .f Y ' 1~:~C~~CcP
u ~2~ i s /rs1`'_ G~ S'- a F Ck
r ~ ~ J -
Return to City Manager's Office, 6700 Portland Ave., Richfield, MN 55423
Complete in Black Ink or Typewriter
,
DATE .~u t~, t~ . I ~
_ CITY OF RICHFIELD COMMISSION/COMMITTEE APPLICATION FORM
~ - ~ .
NAME _ _ .
1'Gl1CteP~l' ~`'1Q~OV1 ~~t`'\1
Last First Middle '
HOME ADDRESS 5 O n ~ , (o St . 1 r~ ' i ! C ~Z
PHONE Home ~ ~ Business a, ; ~ ~ ~ ~ e, ~ o I - ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~
J
APPOINTMENT PREFERENCE:
Advisory Board of Health Htunan Rights Commission X
Civil Service Commission Planning Commission
Comtnunity Services Commission Senior Citizens/Handicapped
Energy Awareness G.,,u~ssion Commission
Sister City International
Briefly list aspects of your experience which you believe qualify you for this
advisory commission and why you are interested ir. serving:
i~l ~ r.+ r ~ vr~ e n ~ 1'Y1 GQ El Q C! f f' - ~ }I' 6~ S
.J
iFac~e.r- ~U ,rrs.
~-l- ~ n n v\! ~l Q U' P 1 ~ rr~ ~ rt c~ Cl C- ~ n Ohl ~ I" I1 C C~ Vr ~•'Y?',.L Y~ ! ~ v
' ~
(TC'~~ Ut ~l E S
CIVIC, PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY ACTIVITIES:
~ ~ ! i
~~~i"~riCl ci~Srtr~c~ CC~?m1,~~f~e~S.
. ~~~.,~;ct~r~q ;Pn.~Pr ~ar Tr~n~rc~U2irn~ti~~ o"T
_ J
_1.. ~ ~ V cl.C ~ ~ Q Vl vt Ci ~ ~ Y1 t (:l ~ ~ ~ i~ ~ i ~ S l C) V1
.REFERENCES (OPTIONAL)
OCCUPATION : ~ ~ ~ ,r,-~ t" c~ r v c~ ~ C h ~ v-
I
Return to .City Manager's Office, 6700 Portland Ave., Richfield, MN 5523
Complete in Black Ink or Typewriter '
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 322
Agenda August 26, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: IDRB Allocation for 1985, and, Joint Powers
Agreement(s) with the Cities of Maple Grove
and/or Minneapolis to Transfer the City of
Richfield's Remaining IDRB Allotment.
Council Members:
The City of Richfield has received an Industrial Development
Revenue Bond (IDRB) entitlement of $3,646,522 for 1985. If the
city does not use the entire entitlement it can transfer the
unused portion to other eligible entities. If such transfer is
not made, the unused portion would revert back to a "pool" of
• IDRB allotments to be redistributed to competing communities.
It is anticipated that the City of Richfield will not use
the entire 1985 allocation. An amount not to exceed $400,000
will possibly be utilized for the development of the Oreck
Project at the southeast corner of Lyndale Avenue and 64th
Street in the LHN (The council has set a hearing on the possible
use of IDBR's for this project for September gth). Another
pessible use of IDRB funding would be for the Cedar Avenue
Liquor site redevelopment project. This project would utilize
approximately $2,200,000 in bonding authority. If the two
above projects are funded, there would be approximately
$1,000,000 in bonding authority which could be transferred
tc another community by a joint powers agreement.
Attached please find letters from William Tetzlaff, the
Minneapolis Community Development Agency (MCDA) Finance
Coordinator, and Alan A. Madsen, Economic Development Director
of Maple Grove, requesting that the City of Richfield transfer
its unused Industrial Development Revenue Bond Allocation to the
City of Minneapolis or the City of Maple Grove.
T'r.e MCDA has three large commercial projects for which it is
seeking additional IDRB allocation. Maple Grove has one project
estimated at a cost cf $3,000,000, and is in need of an
• additional IDRB allocation of $1 .7 million.
- 2-
Both entities (MCDA and Maple Grove) have agreed to pay all
• costs involved in setting up the agreement and in transferring
IDRB funds. Last year when Richfield transferred funds to
other communities it negotiated a right of first refusal for
unused IDRB for this year. Action taken by the state
legislature this year has resulted in the City of Richfield no
longer being an entitlement community beginning in 1986.
In that the MCDA will receive an entitlement next year, the
right of first refusal might be of benefit to Richfield if the
MCDA had a surplus allocation in the future. There is no
assurance that the MCDA will have future unused IDRB funds.
On cr before September 1, 1985, the City must notify the
Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority (MEEDA) of
its intentions regarding use of our allocation. If the
allocation is to be protected, then a check for 1% of the amount
or $36,455 must be deposited with the state.
A p'ro-rated portion of this deposit will be returned to the
City as the IDRB allocation is utilized either directly by
Richfield or through joint power agreements with other cities.
By October 31, 1985, all of the allocation must be utilized or
MDEEDA can be informed that it will not be used. In either
instance, the full amount of the deposit will be returned to the
City. (The City will lose the interest earnings on these funds
for approximately two months).
The most advantageous position for the cit would be to
Y
protect our allotment, utilize it as needed for city projects,
and negotiate agreements with Maple Grove and/or Minneapolis.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the
payment of the 1~ fee cf $35,465 to the state and to negotiate
an agreement with Maple Grove and Minneapolis to the extent
that allocation is available.
Resp ctfully submitted,
c~ I_/~ /1
~..wv.%.':,
Steven L. eJich
Acting. City Manager
SLD/eja
•
/
lr' i~ (t~l~ ' ~ ,
City of ~ ~ ~ ~ .
~
_ + a e rove
9401 Fernbrook Lane, Maple Grove, Minnesota 55369-9998 612-420-4000
Au ust 16 1985
9
Mr. John G. Cartwright, City Mgr.
Cit of Richfield
Y
6700 Portland Ave.
Richfield, MN 55423
Dear Mr. Cartwright:
By this time, I am sure your City has received numerous requests concerning available
IRB Funds. Well, please add my }etter of request to the stack.
At this time, our rapidly growing city has approved requests for $4.4 million in IRB
Funds and our 1985 allocation is $1.7 million. Therefore, I am in need of an
additional $2.7 million in funds. The .project which has received approval, subject to
finding available funds is as follows:
Machine Centers/World Aerospace, Inc.
Office/Warehouse/Manufacturing
104,000. square feet
160 new jobs to the city
B. 8. & R. Industrial Park
Seven acres of land with option for additional five acres
Project cost - $3,000,000
The above project has received a Preliminary Approval Resolution for the use of IRB's
and has received Site Plan Approval from the City. It is their desire to start
construction witnin the next three weeks.
I would greatly appreciate your adding our request to the list of interested cities.
Our City is prepares to pay any legal costs associated with a Joint Powers Agreement
for this truly industrial project. In 1984, we entered into a Joint Powers Agreement
with the City of Minnetonka so we are familiar with this process.
Should you have any questions or need further information on this project, please call
me at 420-4000. Thank you for considering our City and I look forwaro to hearing from
you.
Sinc,ereTy, ~
I j ,
~ ~ =
Alan A. Madsen
Economic Development Director
AM:ct
. "Serving Today, Shaping Tomo~Y ~
James Deane David Bur[ness Charles F. Dehn DonaldJ. Ramstad Donna Ryon Douglas S. Reeder
~ta~~cir Counciimember Councilmembrr Councilmembrr Councilmember City' Administrator
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOND
ALLOCATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT, entered into as of this day of August,
1984, by and between Minneapolis Community Development Agency, a public.
body corporate and politic in Hennepin County, Minnesota ("MCDA") and
the City of Becker, a municipal corporation in Sherburne County,
Minnesota ("Becker"):
WITNESSETH:
In consideration of the mutual undertakings set forth herein, MCDA
and Becker agree as'follows:
I.
This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the powers granted to
MCDA and Becke= by Laws 1984, Chapter 582, Section I5, Subd. 4
(collectively, "Act"). The purpose of this Agreement is to enable MCD~
to issue its industrial development revenue. bonds ("Bands")
for a project or projects pursuant to an allocation made pursuant to
the Act to Becker as an entitlement issuer under the Act.
II.
As used in this Agreement, the terms
a) "entitlement issuer,"
b) "local issuer,"
c) "allocation,"
d) "bonds," and
e) "project"
have the meanings given them by the Act and by Minnesota Statutes,
Chapter 474.. The term "Authority" means the Minnesota Department of
Energy and Economic Development.
III.
'1. Becker has received a final certified allocation as ar. en-
titlement issuer in the amount of 522,911,636.00. MCDA is also an
.
entitlement issuer. and has received a final certified allocation in the
amount of $48,917,-622.
2.- MCDA has given preliminary approval to projects under its
allotment in the amount of approximately $40 million.
3. MCDA desires to use a portion of Becker allocation in an
amount not to exceed $13,638,636.00, for additional eligible projects
intended to benefit the city of Minneapolis and its residents, as well
as the local economy.
4. Becker finds it is desirable and in its interests to make
available. to MCDA from Becker's unused allocation the sum of
$13,638,636.00. '
IV.
1. In order to induce Becker to enter into this Agreement, MCDA
represents and agrees as follows:
a) MCDA has before it or expects to receive a proposal or
proposals for a project or projects requiring Bonds in
an amount of at least $13,638,636.00 in excess of its
allotment;
b) MCDA intends to issue Bonds far said project or pro-
. jects prior to December 31, 1984;
c) MCDA agrees to deliver to the Authorit~~ on or before
September 1, 1984, the monetary deposit and notice of
intent required by the Act in order to obtain the
allocation contemplated by this Agreement;
d) MCDA will and hereby does indemnify Becker for all
legal, administrative, and other costs and expenses
associated with the transactions contemplated hereby,
and hereby releases and holds harmless Becker from any
claims, demands, or causes of action arising out of the
transactions contemplated hereby;
e) MCDA will timely and promptly notify Becker of all
proceedings relating to the approval of a project or
projects and the issuance of Bonds therefor.
f) MCDA a Tees to ive the Cit of Be
g g y c er ~_rst priority
with respect to any excess allocation MCDA may have
dur_ng the years 1985 and 1?86, and if suc:: allocations
-2-
-are continued, the years 1987, 1988, and 1989. .MCDA
further agrees to timely notify Becker in writing in
each of said years as to the availability of an excess
allocation. The total amount of excess allocation made
available to Becker under :this provision shall- not
exceed $13,638,636.00, unless modified by future
agreement of the parties.
2. In recognition of its undertakings under this Agreement,
Becker represents and .agrees as follows:
a) Becker will promptly and timely submit to the Authority
all documents, deposits, and other papers necessary to
carry out the transaction contemplated hereby, provided
that Becker is given a reasonable amount of time, not,
Less than five (5) business days, to perform such
functions.
b) Becker represents that it has the necessary amounts of
uncommitted allocation to enable it to enter into this
Agreement;
c) Becker will use its best efforts to inform MCDA of any
modification of its allocation or of any other facts
- coming to its attention which may materially affect its
ability to carry out and give efLect to the transaction
contemplated hereby. •
IN WITNESS WHEREBY, .MCDA and Becker have caused this Agreement to
be executed by their respective duly authorized officers as of the date
first written above.
MINNEAPOLIS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
Attest: / ecutive Di ctorJ -
Secretary /%j/o By ,f
~=--~1 Finance dicer
CITY OF BECKER
_ test: By 1~~c:C-:~• ~~?i?.:.~~///
~ yor
City Clerk
d'
-3-
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ~ ~
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 321
Agenda August 26, 1985
- The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Planned Unit Development Plan Amendment For Market
Plaza Development
Council Members:
At the July 22, 1985 council meeting the council approved a
revised planned unit development plan for the Market Plaza
Development at 6bth and I,yndale Avenue. The developer has
subsequently submitted plans for review by 'the Building
Inspection division for building, permit approval. During
review of these plans it was discovered that a small addition
(12 feet by 24 feet) has been added to the scutheast corner of
the building which reduces the setback from Lyndale Avenue by
ten feet. The city's planned unit development ordinance
requires that developments be in substantial compliance with the
PUD plan approved by the city. The ordinance also indicates
that a development is not consistent with a planned unit
development plan if there is any change in the setback of the
structure.
Therefore an amended planned unit development plan and final
development plan must be approved by the council before the
development can proceed.
Staff has reviewed the proposed c'r:ange and found that it
does not adversely affect the development or surrounding
properties. The proposed setback (130 feet) would still be
greater than the normally required 40 feet and would not result
in the removal of any parking spaces. It would hcwever, result
in a minor loss of some landscaped area.
It is recommended that the city council approve this minor
amendment to this planned unit development plan. The council
:nay want to refer this matter to the planning commission for
review. However, because of its minor nature and lack of
adverse impact on the development or surrcunding properties, it
is staff's recommendation that planning commission review is
not necessary in this instance.
Respe^tfully submitted,
Steven L. ~ev~ch
Acting City Manager
R,~~,p~~,v ~v ~
P
~
Rr11 •U11•Mr
~ R _ y_~: _
~ ~
~ ~ y I I
I ` ~ KE~~
' ~ t,`' . r. Id's rr I t ~ ~ ~[Z
~ ZA
~ _ ~~5 / ~ I~ w 1, 1 ~ pLA
/ ~ o,
/ _ ~ ' I .mom" w
r
I ~a
1J//J ?9Cy „yl: ) _ ~ 1 vrWrtwK
n~ .f~` I / Nrcn ~
ATI~N a ;`a~
I N
~ ' 6 I o
i+=..
sn ~ /
j ~ K
s'_F .r;.. ~ ~ ~ - ~ y
I M
rh ~ f I r°
r' r f
?.Iy ~ ~ ~ I 7
L - ~ \ r
~ , t ~ I
~..,wv~1 ~ .7 ~ _ ~
M~
,a"'..ea S ~ ~1 O~ ~ j~ r~ollc~ sio
...r•°"° M„mw w~ W0004AxUM5 `A v j t
ONDO O ~;.5~-
~
~~:Y"+~a ~.~~•,Iw w~a Ala ~pe~ co~mucne+l~ ~
i.a~ I;V [
w ...r
I a;,,... ~ ~ 1
~
~
. _ WESt 66tH 4TItEET i
%
CITY OF R?CHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter Ne. 320
Agenda August 26, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Sub'ect: 6 th Street Use Permit - Market Plaza
5
J
Council Members:
Construction will soon begin an the Market Plaza apartment
project. This building is to be constructed on the property
line, leaving no room tc work around the building. Therefore,
Bor-San Construction has requested approval from the city to
use one lane of 65th Street during construction, similar to
the use of 65th Street for the construction of the Wobdlake
Paint project.
A copy of the proposed agreement is attached to this
council letter. Some of the provisions of the agreement are:
• -the developer will restore all street surfaces, curb,
gutter, boulevard utilities, trees and •other city
property to a condition at least equal to their condition
prior to the issuance of the permit;
-the costs for this restoration will be the responsibility
of the developer;
-the restoration must meet the standards of the city and
be approved by the city engineer;
-the agreement will be for a pericd not to exceed twc years;
-the developer will be responsible for extraordinary snow
removal, and remcve all snow accumulated outside of and
adjacent to, its fence on t'r~e traveled roadway; and,
-the developer will be required to furnish the city with a
performance bond in the amount of $60,000 tc guarantee
performance.
•
- 2 -
It is recommended that the City Council approve this
• agreement and authorize the City Manager to execute the
agreement on behalf of the City.
' Resp ctfully submitted,
~C1%
Steven L . ev~ic'
h""''~
Acting City Manager
SLD/eja
•
•
~s~
i
STREET USE PERMIT AGREEMENT
This agreement is dated as of 19
PARTIES
The parties to this .agreement are:
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA ("City"), a municipal
corporation, and
BOR-SON CONST. CO. ("Developer"), a Minnesota business
corporation.
BACKGROUND
Developer is under contract with the City and the Housing and Redevelopment
Authority in and for the City of Richfield, Minnesota ("HRA"), a Minnesota
public body corporate and politic, so as to construct certain improvements
on land transferred to the Developer by the HRA.
In the construction of such improvements, Developer desires to use certain
of the City's street right-of-way for construction purposes. The purpose
of this agreement is to grant permission for the Developer to do so and
to establish the terms and conditions for Developer's doing so.
AGREEMENT
The parties, therefore, contract and agree as follows:
1. The City hereby grants to the Developer permission to use the
public right-of-way designated on the attached plot plan (marked Exhibit "A"
and made~a part hereof) subject to and in accordance with the further
provisions of this agreement.
2. Developer may use-the designated street right-of-way for the
period necessary for construction of the improvements on its private
property adjacent thereto, but in no event for a period longer than
two (2) years from the date hereof.
3. The use of such street right-of-way shall be subject to the
following terms and conditions:
A. The area to be used by Developer shall be fenced off from the
traveled roadway of the street with an industrial chain link fence of a
design and construction approved by the City Engineer. No use of the street
right-of-way shall be made by Developer prior to the construction of the
improvements as herein provided.
-2-
l
B. The Developer shall cause to be placed and shall maintain to
accepted standards and practices of the Minnesota Department of Transportation,
all barricades, signs and other safety devices necessary to warn the traveling
public of the presence of the fence. and of~0eveioper's 'use of the street
right-of-way. No such barricade, sign or device shall be installed or
. retained in place if it is not approved by the City Engineer.
C. Developer shall be solely responsible for the extraordinary snow
removal, .and the cost thereof, made necessary by the Developer's right-of-way.
Developer shall remove all snow accumulated outside of and adjacent to its
fence on the traveled roadway.
D. Developer shall maintain and make available to City personnel at
all times, the designated street right-of-way area permitted to be used
by Developer under this- agreement, so as to permit such City personnel
to perform any necessary utility maintenance. In particular, all water
valves, utility and other appurtenances shall be kept accessible by
Developer at all times during the period of this permit.
E. Any excavations made by Developer in the permitted area must be
cribbed when necessary, depending upon the type of soil, in order to prevent
cave-ins.
F. No guys or stays shall be attached to trees on the right-of-way.
Any trees or other public property on public right-of-way which is damaged
or .destroyed by Developer in the course of constructing its improvements
shall be replaced. by Developer. •
G. Developer shall observe, to the extent applicable, the City's
"Rulings Pertaining to Street and Alley Excavation Safety", a copy of
which is attached hereto and marked Exhibit "B".
H. Developer must construct erosion control devices per Exhibit A
or alternative plan approved by the City Engineer. Developer must maintain
erosion control devices to~prevent silt in the runoff from the site from
entering the city storm sewers. In addition, the Developer is responsible
for daily sweeping of adjacent streets which have deposits of soil from
the site, whether deposited from runoff or vehicles.
I. Developer shall not use any of the remaining 65th Street for loading
or unloading materials or in any other way obstruct traffic movement.
4. Upon expiration or termination of this permit, as provided in
this agreement, Developer shall restore all street surfaces, curb, gutter,
boulevard utilities, trees and other city property to a condition at least
equal to their condition prior to the issuance of this permit. All such
restoration shall be done within twenty (20) working days after such permit
termination or expiration and shall be done at the sole cost and expense of
Developer. Such restoration shall be to the standards of the City and subject
to the approval of the City Engineer.
5. To secure its observance of the restrictions provided in this .
agreement and Developer's obligations to restore the City's property, as
herein provided, Developer shall file with the City a corporate surety bond
-3-
0 -L~
in the amount of Sixty Thousand Dollars ($60,000) conditioned that
the Developer will:
A. Perform work in connection with this ermit agreement in .accordance
p 9
with this agreement and all applicable ordinances, laws, regulations and
conditions.
B. Indemnify and hold the City and the HRA harmless from all damages
caused as a result of or in the course of Develo er's use of the street
p
right-of-way as herein permitted.
C. Pay any and all costs and damages suffered by the City and the HRA
by reason of the failure of the Developer to- observe the terms and
. conditions of this agreement or because of any negligence on the part of
Developer in the execution of the work or the use of the street
right-of-way. Such bond shall be approved as to form by the City's attorney.
6. Under the indemnification referred to in the foregoing section of
this agreement, Developer agrees to~indemnify the City and the HRA, their
officers, agents and employees, and to save them harmless, against any
claims, actions, causes of action or costs or expenses of defending the
same, arising out of or by reason of the granting of this permit or by
reason of the use or occupancy of the City's right-of-way as a result of the
permission herein granted.
7. Neither the City nor its officers, agents or employees shall be
liable to Developer or any of its officers, agents or employees for damages
to property on the permit area caused by cleaning, snow removal or other
maintenance activities of the City.
_ 8. The City may terminate this permit for cause at any time by
resolution of the City Council when, in its sole discretion, it shall deem
such termination to be necessar .
Y
In the event of such termination, written notice thereof shall be
given to Developer at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance of its
effective date. Upon receipt of such written notice, Developer shall
vacate such street right-of-way, or such part thereof as may be designated
in such resolution, within fifteen (15) working days thereafter.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed. this agreement
as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF RICHFIELD
By
its (;ity Manager
BOR-SON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Inc.
By
its Nresiaent
•
•
Exhibit "B"
' - ~ .
RULES PERTAINING TO STREET AN0 ALLEY
EXCAVATION SAFETY
1. Excavations shall- be properly protected and identified by barricades and flags
in the daytime, and barr~cades•and electric•flashin si Hats at ni ht to rotect
9 g 9 ~ P
ersons and. traff i c t a .
P a 11 times.
2. Barricades and fi ht
as ng signals to be erected in a manner which will provide
suitable visibility in all directions.
3. Excavations must be cribbed when. necessary, depending upon type of soi•l,,in
order to prevent cave-ins.
4. No guys or stays to be attached to trees on right-of-way. ~ •
5. Underground construction must be so,constrvcted as no.t to harm or unnecessarily
• destroy the .root growth of sightly or ornamental trees.
_ .ROADWAY _ _
1. Installation of pipe under concrete or high type of bituminous pavemen s to be
done by jacking or boring unless otherwise authorized by Engineer.. When an
installation is made by jacking or. boring a pipe three inches or. larger in
diameter, a casing of .larger dimension must be used to encase the service pipe.
2. Ail backfilling must be placed in .6-inch layers and thoroughly tamped, and
material must be flush and even with the roadsurface when finally in place, •
unless: Engineer authorizes-alternate method of construction.
3: The permit holder shall replace the fini-shed surface, base, .and sub-base of -
road after excavation and back-fill and_.:a11 construction shat] be at least equal
in stability to finished surface, base, and sub-base prior to excavation.
C•oncrete pavement to be~repTaced according to specifications which will be pro- ~
v i ded by the Engineer. _ _ -
5. If settlement occurs or excavation caves in within one year- from completion date
so•that replaced materiaia.settle (bituminous or concrete surfacing) same shal~.-
be restored to its original condition by the holder of this permit. ~ -
6. No pole anchors anchors, braces,~or other construction to be ut on street
P
except"by special authorization.
7. No driving on boulevard except when authorized by.the. Engineer, and if damage
occurs, permit holder will make proper repairs.
8. No machine excavation shall be permitted except when noted in application for
permit. _ •
9. Excavations •larger than .authorized on the permit will not be allowed..
10. Streets maynot be closed to traffic unless expressly authorized by the permit.
L1MlTAT10NS
1. No lugs- shall be used on equipment traversing street-which will damage the
street. surface.
2. Street shall be cleaned up after work is completed.
3. No work shall be done which will create a nuisance. -
4. Tile permit holder shall give 24 hours notice tc the City Engineer, and, when
applicable, the County Engineer, that such work is to commence and shall state
the time work will start. Immediately upon completion, the permit holder shall
notify the City Engineer that the work is ready for final inspection.
Within ten days after receipt of a copy of the permit application the City
Engineer shall. notify the applicant of .any objection the City may have to the
application. -
h/
EXHIBIT A
u~
' ~ 4
W ~ ~
• ~ ~
o ~ i
ZL I
J' I
65th STREET _ ~ ~
_
_._J ~ . ~ _ - .-.J _ - - - - - _ l_
so ' - - - _ - -
-..,....1__., _ g
~ t _ __i..~.__.. is
( _ -
H ~ t.+-..+.i+~+,t+ t+.r++!11++t+~t1++++,i ~tr ~F} ' ~.s~t~3+ 'i~H++4+h~+.a-+~+ R e-1+w ~+.w+r+-.~ i
' ~ ~ y~~'~~w r ..w:h w. s+ .s+.+r~,+i N.~f,K,~.+ + H FtNiL'+ t~ r «tri'~~
~ rt rf3: ~ s ~ )1r.~~yy_:.._ - ' - _ _ _ _
L_ _ ~ ~ - ~ ~;'yy.,,-, t:..h ._.~._JI_-I . C:.l._ =1:._S'.-.Jl. :J".7[.-.3"~_~.~.:L~7_l ._~a..~~ :.][_=7L=~[ 7L:_.I -.7F 7[~~'-J1--7~- ~ ~ r - .
- - - - - . lao os' - ~
SERIES OF HAY BALES / '
PERMIT AREA
FOR EROSION CONTROL I /
I/ ~
I /
~ ,
3" EARTH FILI_~ ,
FLOW ._.._1 FLOW
/Ltli(" nAiJ7/- v~.iN. l Vi7tM1l
STAKE ~ ~ Tl 3
STAKE '
OPTION I UPTION.- 2
NOTE
FABRIC SILTATION FENCE MAY BE WFD IN LIEU OF HAY HALTS
AND SHALL 8E PLACED AS DIRECTED BY TIIE ENGINEER TO
CONTROL. EROSION WITHIN 7HE PROJECT LIMITS.
-7~`i
/°1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 319
Agenda August 26, 1885
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Legion Lake Master Plan
Council Members:
'Far several years, develcpment of Legion Lake Park has been
included as part of the long range Capital Improvement•Program.
Recently a consultant was hired to prepare a Master Plan for
the develcpment of Legion Lake Park. A master plan serves
several purposes such as to focus on goals for the future, to
serve as a tool to use areas to their maximum potential, to
coordinate the areas and facilities, and to generate
excitement. During the Master Plan preparation, boundaries
were verified, preliminary soil borings were taken, and
• hydrology studies began. Residents were invited to participate
in the park planning and design of Legion Lake Park.
The first community meeting was held in conjunction with
the Community Services Advisory Commission meeting of June 11,
1985• Residents in attendance and the Commission prioritized
items: a) water, b) active - outdoors, c) play area, d) passive -
outdoors, e) winter play, f) festival/plaza/open space and g)
community center. The setting of priorities was completed by
the city council just prior to the June 11, 1985, meeting.
As Hated in the attached chart of priorities, water was a
major item of importance in all three instances. From the
ideas of staff, the council, the Commission, and the community,
the consultants prepared three optional plans. These
three plans were reviewed and discussed with residents and
the Community Services Advisory Commission cn July 9, 1985.
Comments were made and questions asked on five major points: 1)
water, 2) circulation (roadways, parking, pathways), 3)
architctural development (major features), 4) picnic areas and
5) buffers.
At the August 13, 1985, Community Services Advisory
Commission meeting, the consultants presented a composite
proposal. This master plan prcpcsai called for a marsh/peed
• theme with an island; an amphitheatre centrally located with
sound directed toward Crosstown 62; an esplanade to unite the
~ ~
-2- l ~
major features of the site; water features; an enhancement of
• the swimming. pool area; separate entrances and parking; separate
pedestrian and bicycle pathways; separate group and family
picnic areas; and, buffering among, other things. The residents
in attendance expressed concurrence with the plan. The
Community Services Advisory Commission recommended that the city
council adopt the Legion Lake master plan as presented.
Turning the master plan into reality will take time and
money. As the features of the master plan near development, the
city council will have an opportunity to review and act on
specific developments. Dredging will be the first step in the
development of Legion Lake. It is anticipated this work may
begin as soon as the winter of 1985/86.
Donald Fondrick, Community Services Director, and the
consultants will be available at the August 26 city council
meeting to present the master plan for Legion Lake and to answer
questions.
It is recommended that the city council adopt the Master
Plan as proposed for the development of Legion Lake, and
authorize preparation of plans and specifications for
dredging.
Respectfully submitted,
•
e en ~LC~ev c
Acting City Manager
SLD/eja
• I'
~ A
r ~
~ ¦
~~nal Le !on Lake !an unveiled ~ s~~-
g ~
by Mark Johnson plan. the park will be located away from ~
A final concept plan for re- As explained by Gair and two 11th Avenue on the east side to
developing Legion Lake Park was associates, the plan implements reduce noise and traffic for resi- \
presented last week to the Richfield water as the chief park feature. The dents living there.
Community Services Commission. lake will be deepened to.a minimum An Esplande, or walkway, will ~ `
The concept was developed by depth of tour feet and purified with a join major park features and exist- ~ ' ~
Gair and Associates, site designing _ system utilizing two holding ponds. ing facilities such as the pool and ice # ~{lp
and planning consultants, Minna- Water in the enlarged lake will not arena. _ " ~ -
apolis. Chiet spokesman for the be suitable for swimming or boat- Parking will be provided for a- _
consultant was Michael J. Gair. ing, however. total of 260 cars and parking lots will - - - - 1 j t .
Work on the ;3 million park plan Another prominent feature will be located near thetacilities. ~ ~ - ~f
is expected to begin this winter with be a 1,500- to 2,000-seat am- Detailed plans are still in the ~ ~ ~ •
dredging of Legion Lake, located at phitheati•e located adjacent to the formative stages. The com- t'{~~
66th Street and Portland Avenue. lake. Seating will be provided near mission's concept plan identities in ' ~ 4-
Little disagreement with the final a stage that may be movable to general.terms what will be included ~ ~ ~ : t
plan was voiced due to the structure allow various types o[ per- and where.
of the planning process itself. The formances to be staged. The site consists of a total of 109 -
.commission and residents working A family picnic area is planned acres, Analysis of the lake has - .
on the concept developed a' final for the northwest area of the park. shown that Legion Lake must be at ~ - ° `
plan from three schemes presented 13erming and landscaping wW help least 62 acres to handle water
at earlier meetings. shield the park from vehicular traf- drainage requirements on the site. An architect's sketch shows the layout of the final Legion Lake
Most of the bugs had been worked tic along 66th Street, Portland Ave- Park plan presented last week at the Richtleld Community
out prior to presentation of the final nue and Hwy. 62. Main features of ~ Services Commission meeting. The ~3 million Ian will be
P
~9~~ S4 ~ Implemented beginning this winter with dredging. The park is
located at 66th Street and Portland Avenue.
I~ •
LEGION LAKE DESIGN CRITERIA
COUNCIL COMMISSION RESIDEidTS
MED. MED.
. HIGH HIGH LO~.J L'OW HIGH MED. LOG1 HIGH MED. LO!J
I III I ~ ~ ~ I
~'J ^ -
. G~~r a ~
3 ~ 2- 8 ~ i
I I i ! i
i
I j j
~ ~ ~ I ~ i
3. active -Outdoors 2 ~ 3 i- i- i ~ 3 j 4; 2 1 9 17 , 3
I I ~ ~ i ! I
I I i I i I i
~ , ~ ~
j I, ~ ~ ~ I ;
C. ?lay area l 1 X!- j 7 1 2 1 1 19 8
i i ~ j
i i i ~ ~ i '
i ~
I~ j , ~ i i I
j i I ~ i ~ ~ i i '
~ I
I I ~ i i ~ ~
?ass ive -Outdoors 1 3 ~ 4 6 1 i 12 ; 14 I i i
j i
i I j i
i i I j '
i i
_ . ;1i nter ~1 av - - - ~ 3 ~ - 1 8 ' ! 1 11 lb
~ i
I ~ ~ ~ I ~ j
I
i I j ~ I
I
='s~i ~~al /?1 aza/Open Soace ~ 1 1 ' X~ 1 5 2 j - ~ ~ 12 ~ 11 8
' I I ~ '
j
Co~~nuni ty Center ~ - I - ~ - 4 ; - 3 ~ 6 - I; 3 8 ' 17
I i ~ ~ I I
j
•
~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 318
Agenda August 25, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Approval cf Minutes, Tabulation of Bids and
Award of Bid for Storm Sewer Improvements
Council Members:
On Wednesday, August 7, 1985, bids were opened for storm
sewer improvement projects to be completed this year. Separate
bids were taken for the 69th Street storm drain manhole
improvements (City Project No. 708-1561) and the 76th Street &
Washburn Avenue storm drain installation (City Project Nc. 708-
1552). The bid minutes and tabulations are attached for council
review.
Six bids were received for the 59th Street storm drain
manhole improvement project; Orvedahl Construction, Inc. was the
low bidder with a bid of $38,200. Ten bids were received for
the 75th St r.eet and Washburn Avenue storm drain work; Richard
Knutson, Inc. of Burnsville was the low bidder with a bid of
$381,308. The total constructicn costs would be $419,508.
The consulting engineering firm for these projects, Orr-Schelen-
;~layeron & Associates, Inc., estimated the total constructicn
costs for the two projects to be $411,000.
Easements from several property owners in the area of Adam's
Hill Park are needed to complete the constructicn work. Staff
is requesting authorization to purchase a 10 foci permanent
easement along the property at 2924 West 74th Street for $2,000.
Other easements needed in the area are only temporary cues and
minimal monetary ocmpensation cf $1 will be paid to these
property owners. Funding for these easements and the actual
construction and engineering costs of the capital improvements
will be paid for through the newly-implemented storm sewer
utility.
It is recommended that the city council take the
following actions:
•
- 2 - n
1. Accept the bid minutes and tabulations;
2. Authorize staff to compensate affected property owners
for easements required to complete the storm sewer
improvements;
3. Award a contract to Orvedahl Ccnstruction Inc. in the
amount of $38,200 for the 59th Street storm drain
manhole improvements;
Award a contract to Richard Knutson Inc. in the amount
of $381,308 for the 76th Street and Washburn Avenue
storm drain installation.
Respe,~tfully submitted,
Steven L . ~ev~ch
Acting City Manager
SLD/e ja
f~
CITY OF RICHFIELD
Bid Opening
August 7, 1985
69th Street Storm Drain Manhole Improvements and Washburn Avenue Storm Drain
City Project 708-1561
City Project 708-1562 '
Pursuant to requirements of Resolution No. 1015, a meeting of the Administrative
Staff was called by Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk, who announced that the purpose
of the meeting was to receive, open, and read aloud, sealed bids for the 69th
Street Storm Drain Manhole Improvements and Washburn Avenue Storm Drain, as
advertised in the official newspaper on July 17, 1985.
Present: Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
Steven L. Devich, Acting City Manager
Michael Eastling, City Engineer
Don Fonderick, Comm. Services Director
The following bids were submitted and read aloud:
BIDDER BID SECURITY SCHEDULE A SCHEDULE B
• A.R.I. Contracting 5% $ no bid $ 406,838.77
Robinson Construction Co., Inc 5% po bid 628,453.00
Northdale Construction Co., Inc 5% no bid 440,585.75
Lametti & Son, Inc 5% 65,000 468,000.00
G.L. Contracting, Inc 5% 46,000 375,953.05
L & G Rehbein, Inc. 5% no bid 409,566.05
Barbarossa & Sons, Inc. 5% 49,664 419,244.00
Jay Bros., Inc. 5% 38,863 no bid
Orfei and Sons, Inc 5% no bid 411,807.40
Rice Lake Contracting Corp. 5% no bid 398,114.50
Orvedahl Construction, Inc. 5% 38,200 no bid
Richard Knutson, Inc. 5% 45,700 381,308.00
The City Clerk announced that the bids would be tabulated and considered at the
August 26, 1985 City Council meeting.
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR
STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids for the
construction of 69th Street storm drain manhole improvements and
the 76th Street and Washburn Avenue storm drain installation
bids were received, opened and tabulated according to law; and
WHEREAS, it appears that Orvedahl Construction Inc, is the
lowest responsible bidder for the 69th Street improvements; and
WHEREAS, it appears that Richard Knutson Inc, is the lowest
responsible bidder for the 76th Street and Washburn Avenue
improvements;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. That the bid of Orvedahl Construction in the amount of
$38,200 for construction of the 69th Street storm drain manhole
improvements is hereby accepted;
2. That the bid of Richard Knutson Inc. in the amount of
$381,308 for construction of the 76th Street and Washburn Avenue
storm drain installation is hereby accepted;
3. That the mayor and city manager are hereby authorized
• and directed to enter into contracts for these improvements with
Orvedahl Construction Inc. and Richard Knutson Inc, in the name
of the City of Richfield according. to plans ,and specifications
therefore approved by the city council;
4. The city clerk is hereby authorized and directed to
return forthwith to all bidders the deposits made with their
bids, except that the deposits of the successful bidder and the
next lowest bidder shall be retained until a contract has been
signed.
Passed by the City Ccuncil of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 26th day of August, 1985•
John Hamiltcn, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
i
l
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
Council Letter No. 317
Agenda August 26, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Ordinance Amendment Relating To State Electrical
Alarm Licenses For Installers Of Power Limited
Alarm Circuits (To Be Continued Tc September 23,
1985•)
Council Members:
During. the special session of the state legislature in June,
1985, significant amendments were passed involving nearly the
entire chapter related to the licensure of pcwer limited alarm
circuit installations. On April 8, 1985, the council gave first
reading to an ordinance amendment intended to bring our
ordinance code requirements into conformance with the state
statute. However, because of the extensive amendments made
by the legislature in June, the proposed ordinance amendment
must also be modified to refect these extensive changes before
second reading can occur. ,
The City Attcrney is currently developing the new
crdinance language for second reading consideration. The
completed redraft of the ordinance amendment under consideration
by the council, will be prepared for the September 23, 1985,
city council meeting.
It is recommended that the second reading of this
ordinance amendment be ccntinued to the regular council meeting
of September 23, 1985•
Respectfully submitted,
teven L. v"chi'`'
Acting City Manager
SLD/eja
•
y~~
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
i Council Letter No. 316
Agenda August 26, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Sign
First Western Bank, 6500 Nicollet Avenue
Council Members:
Sign Service, Inc. has requested a permit to erect an
illuminated pedestal sign at the First Western Bank, located at
6500 Nicollet Avenue. The sign will be double-faced with
constant illumination and will measure 18' x 10'.
City of Richfield ordinance code 3.~9, Subd. 19 Illuminated
Signs, provides that city council approval is required for
illuminated signs.
• The planning division and the inspecticn division have
reviewed this sign permit and recommend approval with the
following stipulation:
1. That the exterior wcod cladding be consistent
with the Urban Design elements and other signs
in the Hub PUD. (Wood cladding is the use of
wood on the extericr of the sign to cover the
metal, such. as the pole, to soften the appearance
of the sign).
Res ctfully submitted,
..~.-LFf
Steven L. De ich
Acting City Manager
• SLD/eja
•
~t
tt~
- :w
,
~G kt
,~~.~.ti
/ l
~T
i '
~ . ~ u~-~ ~
/v I ~ l ~ i
L
` ~ I i
^ ~ r,
~~L
,y ~ ~ L' u
/Lil ~~I
I ~
1~
i
I
I
l
_ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ I i ~ i f" r 4 L Z _
~ ~ ~ City Manager + InspectoJ~ ~ / `j
Date Date ' r
APPROVE I j~~ DEFY ~ APPROVE I I DENYI 7f
~ w~ ~_,,,,;,m Piannin; Department City Council
~~e-~.~.. ,~:...t.~sr~ T5 h-r.~.) ~ i.+K~~' Date ~ c~7 Date
to above for special approval per code General Signs
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PER'~fIT
City of Richfield, ?Minnesota
O
Date ~ ~ ~-C~ Zoning Sign Erected - Yes No Fee
Address of Sign L~~~s-~ ~~~<v~~~ Proprietor Name~,~~(~_5~~,(Q,L~,~~/,~A
Si n Erector
S ~ ~ U1 Ad d r e s s ~ D ~ F~ <~v ~'v'~S 1 ~1 Y ~ S S ~y ~
Type of Sign Design t,'eather Cover Lighting
Wall Single Face ( Clear Lexon Constant
Projecting ~ Double Face ~ Frosted Lexon Flashing
Ground ~ Multi-Faced Plastic Covered Revolving
Roof ~ Aerial/Blimp ~ Shaded ~ Traveling
Pedestal ~ Searchlight ~ ~ Neon _ Zip Lite
Changeable Banner/Pennants Other ~C'E~~~~ Other(Explain)
Temporary Portable Frame : Sign Colors t. ~ `.,c.' i~(~ r~ /
Trailer iI T ~ A ~ Post ~ ~ }
If Illuminated es~ No Watts
E1 ^trical Contractor ' ~~(o S~~J~ Address / j ~ ~-t.i ~ _"S~ Phone~~0 ~ v
i~r rty 0~,-ner or his Ager.t Signature ~';~•-,--~i_~~~ i~% -"'phone ,
Estimated Cost Si n Width ,Hei n_~~ /
g / ~ g /U Total Square Feet ~ ~ Q
Position of the advertisement structure in relationship to the adjacent buildings, sidewalks,
curbs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilities on
drawing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of s~ajor signs. Minor signs as
defined on page 2.
Two blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
including specifications, list of materials, and ehplicit anchoring or fastening details
and a copy of the stress sheets, calculations, color of sign structure.
Does the sign coy elate solely to the business, institu*_ion, or activity conducted on
the premises" '/r/ J
i
W• 1 the sib.., tructure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
to of ~ac~cess by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? ~1l a
~ica t s Signature and~Title with Firm _ ~
p ~ ~ Date ~ l Z
.hone Number ~ ~ ~
L
1 PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SIG~1 LOCATION S~:ETCH
Sivert Hendrickson/Building Official - 866-5061
f
l~ I
CITY OF RICHFIELD M N A
I NESOT
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 315
Agenda August 26, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Request for Permit for Illuminated Sign
Attracta Sign, Inc., 6417 Penn Avenue
Council Members:
Attracta Sign, Inc. has requested an advertising permit to
erect a new sign on their own premises located at 6417 Penn
Avenue. The sign will replace an existing pedestal sign. It
will be double-faced with constant illumination and will measure
12' x 6' The existing, reader board below this sign will
remain.
City of Richfield ordinance code 3.4g, subd. 19, Illuminated
• Signs, provides that city council approval is required for
illuminated signs.
The city staff has reviewed this sign application and finds
that the sign conforms to pertinent city ordinances. It is
recommended that the city council approve the permit for an
illuminated sign at 6417 Penn Avenue.
Resp ctfully submitted,
Steven L. e~i~ch
Acting City Manager
SLD/eja
•
i .,~;~i
c~
UU a 9~~ ~i 11~~~
oaf ? o
~
~
V
J
Q p
U C H v a V
r ~
o-,~~
C
City Fi:?naper ~ Inspector
Date - D;,te!`~~ ~
~
rro~~e ~~I Deny ~ ~-"~24_~____ Approve Deny
4.„~„ ~~Y,;y,~ Plannin~ Dc~t, City Co~mcil
_ t..~,..-~r r-~t~_.,..-~„~:#s Date r~ D3tc
I
utc to above for special C;eneral Suns
nnreval per code , - ;
APPLICATION FOR ADVERTISING PTR"1IT nartsl
City of Richfield, "iinnesota
to Aug. 13, 1985?oning Sign Erected - Yes X Nn Fee 28.00
dress of Sign 6417 Penn Ave. So. proprietor 1`ame AU Sterner DR4 Attracta Sign
gn Erector Attracta Sign, Inc. address 6417 Penn Ave. So. Richfield, MN 55423
T~-pe of Sign Desinn heather Cover Lightin,~
.'all ; _ Single face ~1 Clear Lexon Constant
Projecting LX Do~sble face ~ Frosted Lexon Flashing
Ground i--- Multi-faced _ Plastic Covered ! _ Revolvinr•
Roof ! ~ AerialiBlimp Shaded Traveling
I Pedestal Searchlight _ Neon Zip-life
Changeable Banner/Pennsnts _ Other Other (Fxnl.l
Temnorarv Portable Frame: Si,,^n Colors Red White & Bronze
i ler T•~ A.~~ Post
Illuminated - Yes X No IYatts
i,j -
eetrical Contractor ;,i_(! 'rte:-jr ~1.-;.~~-:j--_ Address _ Phnne_
~perty O~.•ner or his Agent Signature ~ Phnne_
:imated Cost 1,000. Sign Width 12 ~ Height 6 ~ To*.al Sq. Et. 72
sition of the `advertisement structure in relationship to the adiacent buildings, sidewall:s~
~bs, roadways, overhead utility lines, vehicle movement lines, or public facilitieG on
~~ing with significant dimensions and attached hereto of maior signs. Minor signs as
pined on page 2.
~ blueprints of the sign, billboard, or outdoor advertising structure construction plans:
:luding specifications, list of materials, and explicit anchoring or fastening details
i a copy of the stress sheets, calculations color of sign structure.
W~ are redoing our exist~n ~i~n.
s t e sign copy relate to sole ygt e usiness, institution, or activity conducted on
premises.' YeS
I the sign, structure, or billboard restrict any sight distance under, around, or over
safe.-.access by persons destined for or passing the subject premises? N o
~1'~ ~s Signature and Title with Firm Date August 13, 1985
nc Number 866-3047 ~1 j
1~~i~ ~i~ 1~
1D1 \
I/7q
7 ~r J
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 31~
Agenda August 26, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Resolution Declaring Cost to be Assessed, Ordering
the Preparation of Proposed Assessment and Setting
the Date for the Hearing on Proposed Assessment
for City Project Nc. 813, Richfield State Agency
Storm Sewer Improvements
Council Members:
On February 25, 1985, the Richfield City Council awarded the
contract for City Project No. 813, Richfield State Agency Storm
Sewer Improvements, to Richard Knutson Inc. This work consisted
of construction of a storm sewer trunk line from the RSA
property to Richfield Lake. Work began on May 8 and concluded
approximately six weeks later. Richfield State Agency Inc.
petitioned the City of Richfield to construct this storm sewer
outlet, with the understanding that the total cost of the
project, except the sum of $15,000 to be assessed against the
Market Plaza property, will be specially assessed against their
property.
City staff has now determined the costs tc be assessed for
this project. Actual construction costs, plus administrative
and construction engineering charges, total $1~49,74U.57 for
the project.
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached
resolution declaring the costs to be assessed and ordering the
preparation of the proposed assessment roll; and the resolution
setting the date of t'rre hearing on the proposed assessment for
September 23, 1985.
Resp ctfully submitted,
Steven L . e icrfW"`•~.
Acting City Manager
SLD/eja
•
_ ~1
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION DECLARING COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AND
ORDERING PREPARATION OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT FOR RICHFIELD STATE
AGENCY STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS - CITY PROJECT N0. 813
WHEREAS, costs have been determined for the construction of
a storm sewer outlet from the RSA property in the scutheast
quadrant of 56th Street and Lyndale Avenue to Richfield Lake
across public right-of-way and across the property in the
northwest quadrant of 66th Street and Lyndale Avenue and
expenses incurred amount to be $149,744.57;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. The portion of the cost to be assessed against benefited
property owners is declared to be $149,744.57;
2. The city clerk shall forthwith calculate the proper
amount to be specially assessed for such improvement against
every assessable lot, piece or parcel of land affected, without
regard to cash valuation, as provided by law, and shall file a
copy of such proposed assessment in his office for public
inspection;
3. The clerk shall, upcn completion of such proposed
assessment, notify the city council thereof.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Richfield,
Minnesota this 26th day of August, 1985.
John Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
7"li' J
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION FOR HEARING ON PROPOSED ASSESSMENT
RICHFIELD STATE AGENCY STORM SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
CITY PROJECT N0. 813
WHEREAS, by a resolution passed by the City Council of the
City of Richfield on September 23, 1985, the city clerk was
directed to prepare a proposed assessment for the cost of
constructing a storm sewer outlet from the Richfield State
Agency property in the southeast quadrant of 66th Street and
Lyndale Avenue tc Richfield Lake across public right-of-way and
across the property in the northwest quadrant of 56th Street and
Lyndale Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the city clerk has notified the City Council that
such proposed assessment has been completed and filed in his
office for public inspection;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council cf the
City of Richfield, Minnesota:
1. A hearing shall be held on the 23rd day of September,
1985, in the council chambers of City Hall at 7 p.m. to pass
upon such proposed assessment and at such time and place all
persons awning property affected by such improvement will be
given an opportunity tc be heard witl^~ reference to such
assessment.
2. The city clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice of
the hearing on the proposed assessment to be published once in
t'r~e official newspaper at least two weeks prior to the hearing,
and he shall state in the notice the total cost of the
improvement. He shall also cause mailed notice to be given to
the owner of each parcel described in t'r~e assessment roll not
less than two weeks prier tc t'r:e 'r.earings.
Adopted by the City Council cf the City cf Richfield,
Minnesota this 26th day cf August, 1985.
John. Hamilton, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thomas P. Ferber, City Clerk
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA /
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 313
Agenda August 26, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and '
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Setting Date of Public Hearing for Vending
Machine License gees for 198b
Council Members:
State law mandates that a public hearing be held whenever an
increase in license fees for food products, soft drink and
tobacco vending machines is proposed. The statutes also provide
that all license holders be notified of the hearing date at
least 30 days prior to the public hearing.
An increase in these vending machine license fees is
proposed for 1986. Therefore, it is recommended that the city
council set the date for the public hearing on these proposed
• fee increases for September 23, 1985• It is further recommended
that the city clerk be directed tc notify all affected license
holders of this hearing date aiZd time.
Res tfully submitted,
s-~
Steven L. Devich
Acting City Manager
SLD/eja
•
r
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter No. 312
Agenda August 26, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Approve Plans and Specifications, Authorize
Advertisement for Bid - City Garage Furnace
Council Members:
The adopted Capital Budget includes City Project No. 799
which calls for improvements at the city garage including the
roof and furnace. It has been determined that it is necessary
to formally bid for the furnace portion. of the work.
The plans and specifications call for a infra-red heating
system, a fresh air exchange and the labor and accessories to do
the installation. This system would be placed in the mechanic
area of the garage where the maintenance and repair of city
equipment is performed. The plans and specifications have been
reviewed by the Community Services Department and.the Public
Safety Department. The Director of Community Services will be
available to answer any questions the city council may have
about the work.
It is recommended the city council approve the plans and
specifications for a heating system at the city garage and
authorize the advertisement for bids.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~
Steven L . De~ich
Acting City Manager
SLD/eja
•
i
.CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
• Council Letter Nc. 311
Agenda of August 26, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Presentation of Environmental Assessment Worksheet
(EAW) For Thee CDR Investments/Minnesota, Inc.
Project.
Council Members:
On August 12, 1985, the city council adopted a resaluticn
authorizing the City Manager and staff to direct the
preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksl-ieet for the CDR
Investments/Minnesota, Inc. project in accordance with Section
116D of the Minnesota Statutes. The City Manager and staff were
. also authorized to engage or hire any consultants deemed
necessary to aid in the preparation of the Environmental
• Assessment Worksheet provided that the cost of such consultants
would be the sole obligation of CDR Investments/Minnesota.
Attached for city council consideration~is a copy of the
Environmental Assessment Worksheet. This document indicates
that the project has an estimated construction cost of
approximately $5.8 million dollars, that it has a total project
area of approximately 11 acres, that the amount of development
will not exceed 749,000 square feet and the number of parking
spaces proposed to be constructed will net exceed 1,900. The
EAW also describes the current and recent past land uses on the
site and categorizes the various types of land uses by
percentage. In addition the EAW examines project area soils,
addresses the impact of the project on ground and surface
water, and identifies dust, noise and air pollution aspects of
the project. The EAW also describes the summary of issues which
will be generated by this proposed project.
It is recommended that:
1. The City Council accept the EAW and authorize its
distribution as provided by law.
2. That the City Council issue a press release on this
document and send a copy of it tc the Minnesota
Environmental duality Board for their review and
• comment.
~ -2-
3. That the City Council apprcve the attached resolution
• calling fcr a public hearing on the EAW on September
23, 1985.
Representatives of the developer and the city staff will be
present at the August 26, 1985, city council meeting to answer
questions that council members may have.
Resp ctfully submitted,
d `~~~w~
Steven e~3ich
Acting City Manager
SLD/eja
•
i
~
RESOLUTION N0.
RESOLUTION SETTING PUBLIC HEARING
DA'I'S TO RECEIVE COMMENTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL
. ASSESSiyIENT WORi~SHEET PREPARED FOR THE
CDR INVES'T'MENTS/MINNESOTA INC. PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has received a draft
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAWj for the CDR
Investments/1~linnesota, Inc. project generally located at 1494
and I35W in accordance with Section 115D of the Minnesota
Statutes, and
WHEREAS, the City of Richfield has determined that a public
hearing is necessary to receive comments concerning the draft
EAW.
NOW, THEREFORE BE I'I' RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Richfield, Minnesota that a public hearing will be held
at 7 PM on Monday September 23, 1985 to receive comments
concerning the CDR project EAW.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Richfield, this
loth day of August, 1985.
John Hamilton, iyIayor
ATTEST:
Tromas P. Ferber, City Clerk
.
PRESS RELEASE
The City of Richfield has received a draft Environmental
Assessment Worxsheet ~EAWj for the CDR investments%i~finnesota,
Inc. Project. This project is generally located on an 11 acre
site lying between loth Street and 1494 and between Emerson
Avenue and the extension of Girard Avenue. This project has an
estimated construction cost of approximately b58 million
dollars. The amount of development will not exceed 749,000
square feet and the number of parking spaces proposed to be
constructed will not exceed 1900. The types of land uses
proposed include office, hotel and related uses.
The draft EAW discusses project area soils, talks about the
impact of the project on ground and surface water, and discusses
dust, noise and air pollution aspects of the project. The draft
EAw also describes the summary issues which will be generated by
this proposed project.
The City of Richfield will conduct a public hearing to
recieve comments on this draft EAW at 7:00 PM on Monday,
September 23, 1985 in the Council Chambers of Richfield City
Hall at 6700 Portland Avenue South. written Comments will also
be accepted by the City of Richfield if they are received by
October 9, 1985.
Copies of the draft EAW are available for review 8:00 AiM to
4:30 Pf~l Monday thru Friday at the City of Richfield Community
• Development Department at 0700 Portland Avenue South.
i
~~'-i;,
'ZO'OS . ~
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
DEVELOPER : C.D.R. INVESTMENTS
ARCHITECTS: KORSUNSKY, KRANK, ERICKSON ARCHITECTS INC
~ f,
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
E.R. " (filled in by EQB) 5/1/84
y~ 7
Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW)
MARK APPROPRIATE BOX:
D REGULAR EAW ? SLOPING EAw
NOTE TO REVIEWERS: For regular EAWs, written comments should address the accuracy and completeness of the EAW
information, potential impacts that may warrant investigation and/or the need for an EIS. For scoping EAWs, written com-
mentsshould address the accuracy and completeness of the information and suggest issues for investigation in the EFS. Such
comments must be submitted to the Responsible Government Unit (RGU) during the 30-day period following notice of the
EAW's availability in the EQB Monitor. Contact the EQB (metro: 612/296.8253: non-metro: 1-800-652-9747, ask for envi-
ronmental review program) or the RGU to find out when the 30-day comment period ends.
I
I
1. Project Name 35W - 494 Development
2. Proposer CDR Investfnents/Minnesota 3. RGU City of Richfield
Fred Boistad (Partner) '
Contact Person Ron Erickson. John SdCJi3t ~KKE) Contact Person ~pnnis Kraft
Address 5001 West 80th Street, #901 and Title Community Development Director
Bloomington, MN 55437 Address 6700 Portland Avenue South
Phone 831-6601 Richfield, MN 55423
Phone 869-7521
4. Project Location: ~/a i/s Section Township Range
a. Coun a Hennepin Mi nnea of i s
ty N me City/Township Namp p
b. Attach copies of each of the following to the EAW:
1. a county map showing the general area of the project.
2. a copy(ies) of USGS 7~ /z minute, 1:24,000 scale map.
3. a site plan showing the location of significant features such as proposed structures, roads, extent of flood plain,
wetlands, wells, etc.
4. an existing land use map and a zoning map of the immediate area, if available.
5. Describe the proposed project completely (attach additional sheets as necessary).
SEE ATTACHED SHEET FOR DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT.
~I
I
1
6• Reason for EAW preparation: Manddtory
inn. Rules F3441.43Q0 Subp. 14(A)(3); 7~'~
List all mandatory category rule •'s which apply: ~44 X0.4300 Subp . 15 (B )
Q7. Estimated construction cost Approximate 1 y $ 57 , 700 , 000
V. Total project area (acres) Approximately 11 dcre5 or length (miles)
Approx. 740,000 s.
9. Number of residential units ~ or commercial, industrial, or institutional square footage J],Q•r t4 exceed 749500
10. Number of proposed parking spaces Parking structure - 1,600 cars
Surface parking - 3UU cars
1 1 • List all known local, slate and federal permits/approvals/funding required:
Level of Government Type of Application Status
Feaeral: None
State: Assessment of Need for Indirect Source Permit (by MPCA)
County: Plat Review - To be applied for
Local: PUD Permit Approval Building and Use Permits
Health Department Permit (Restaurant) Nine-Mile Watershed District
Preliminary and Final Plat Approval -All to be applied for
Conditional Use Permit
1 ~ • Is the proposed project inconsistent with the local adopted comprehensive land use
plan or any other adopted plans? ~ No ? Yes
If yes, explain:
13. Describe current and recent past land use and development on and near the site.
The site is currently improved with a single story, multi-unit motel building,
former-ly known as the Cloverleaf Motel. The motel has been on the site for
approximately 30 years. Adjoining the site on the north, there is a detached
single family dwelling which was occupied by the owner/manager of the hotel.
A small parcel of land containing four single family detached dwellings adjoins
the site on the northeast corner.
14 • Approximately how many acres of the site are in each of the following categories?
(Acreages should add up to total project area before and after construction.)
Before After Before After
Forest/Wooded 19% ~ 26% Wetland (types 3-8)
Cropland Impervious Surface 14% /4%
c Brush/grassland Other (specify)
15 • Describe the soils on the site, giving the SCS soil classification types, if known.
SEE ATTACHED SOILS REFORT.FOR DESCRIPTION OF SOILS.
1 Does the site contain peat soils, highly erodible soils, steep slopes, sinkholes, shallow
limestone formations, abandoned wells, or any geologic hazards? if yes, show on site
map and explain: ? No ~ Yes
In the west central portion of the site, compressible organic peat exists to
a depth of approximately 14 feet. Soils corrections for construction of the
parking structure will not have a significant impact on the development or
surrounding areas (SEE ATTACHED SOILS REPORT.
17 • What is the approximate depth (in feet) to: 2
a. groundwater 7 min. 25 .avg.. b. bedrock 100 min. avg.
18• Does any part of the project area involve: ~
a. shoreland zoning district? X No Yes -
b. delineated 100-year flood plain? - ~ No ~ Yes
c. state or federally designated river land use district? ~ No ~ Yes
If yes, identify water body and applicable state classification(s), and describe measures
to protect water and re{ated {and resources:
19. Describe any physical alteration (e.g., dikes, excavation, fill, stream diversion) of any
drainage system, lake, stream, and/or wetland. Describe measures to minimize im-
pairment oEthe water•related resources. Estimate quantity of material to be dredged
and indicate where spoils wit! be deposited.
N07 APPLICABLE.
. Z~• a.Will the project require an appropriation of ground or surface water? If yes, explain Q No ? Yes
(indicate quantity and source):
During construction there is a possible need for minimum
dewatering for footing excavation of the parking structure.
b.Will the project affect groundwater levels in any welts (on or off the site)? If yes, ex•
plain: ® No ? Yes
21 • Describe the erosion and sedimentation control measures to be used during and after
construction of the project.
Prior to grading and excavation of the site, perimeter siltations fences will
be erected to control erosion. Ultimately, all site areas will be paved,
sodded, planted, or left in their natural state.
w • a. Will.the project generate:
1. surface and stormwater runoff? No Yes
2. sanitary wastewater? - No Yes
3. industrial wastewater? No Yes
4. cooling water (contact and noncontact)? No Yes
If yes, identify sources, volumes, quality (if other than normal domestic sewage),
and treatment methods. Give the basis or methodology of estimates.
The City Community Services Department has confirmed that the 486 gallons/minute
sanitary sewage and the 40 cubic feet/second site drainage runoff can be adequately
handled by the existing sanitary and storm sewers. In addition, the water main
adjacent to the site can adequately provide water service.
~ b. Identify receiving waters, including groundwater, and evaluate the impacts of the
discharges listed above. If discharges to groundwater are anticipated, provide per- _
colation/permeability and other hydrogeological test data, if available.
The building heating/cooling system will be a core water system with heat pumps
from boilers with athree-way valve system through .a cooling tower. The coolingg
II h anitar
tower will be dumped approximately twice a year, with a discharge into t e s y
system of approximately 10,000 gallons each time.
Z 3 • Will the project generate (either dunng or after construction}: -
a. air pollution? ~ No Yes
b. dust? ~ No Yes
c. noise? No Yes
d. odors? ~ No Yes
If yes, explain, including as appropriate: distances to sensitive land uses; expected lev-
els and duration of noise; types and quantities of air pollutants from stacks, mobile
sources, and fugitive emissions (dust); odor sources; and mitigative measures for any
impacts. Give the basis or methodology of estimates.
Construction equipment will generate the normal noise, exhaust fumes, and dust.
All equipment will be muffled. Water will be used to control dust during demoli-
tion and construction. .The above conditions will be eliminated after construction
and the establishment of surfacing and turf. The construction period for the hotel3
and office building will be approximately 18 months each, with construction
starts staggered by approximately 6 months.
ribe the type and amount of solid and/or hazardous waste including sludges and "f~-~~~
s that will be generated and the method and location of disposal:
al waste typical for hotel and offices uses will be taken to a land fill ~by
ivate contractor. It will be generated at a rate of approximately 80 cubic
s/day. No hazardous wastes will be generated.
he project affect:
h or wildlife habitat, or movement of animals? ® No ? Yes
ny native species that are officially listed as state endangered. threatened. or of
ecialconcern (animals and/or plants)? ~ No ? Yes '
, explain (identify species and describe impact):
ny hrstorical, archaeological or architectural resources exist on or near the project
If yes, explain (show resources on a site map and describe impact): ® No ? Yes
the project cause the impairment or destruction of: -
esignated park or recreation areas? ~ No ~ Yes
rime or unique farmlands? No Yes
ologicaily sensitive areas? . No Yes
enic views and vistas? No Yes
they unique resources (specify)? X No Yes
, explain:
ach affected road indicate the current average daily traffic (ADT), increase in ADT
ibuted by the project and the directional distributions of traffic.
ATTACHED REPORT FROM TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
dequate utilities and public services now available to service the project? if not;
additional utilities and/or services will be required? ? No ® Yes
ry of Issues •
s-,list the issues as identified by "yes" answers above. Discuss alternatives and mitigative measures for these
ing EAWs, list known issues, alternatives, and mitigative measures to be addressed in EIS.
ee attached soils report.
ee notation under Item 22.
71 motorized equipment will be muffled, and the site will be watered for
ust control. State regulations NPC-2 and ail applicable City ordinances
n voice levels will be maintained.
ON: BY RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT
that the information contained in this document is true and complete to the best of my knowledge and that
mpleted EAW have been made available to ail points on the official EQB distribution list.
.Date L~
• ~ ` StIM1, r.4 ~~;{rr~ ~ ~ •..aos~ vrAt~ ,'ir..ti~ t. u:-.i' .r ~ ~ i .~;J-•,
nr
r"" ' 1 -a-'t _Y' ~ i I
. ~ , ~ 1. ® ~ t , - ~ ~ ~ . ~ , ~ ;lei '"~.1 , .
~ ' ~ _ ~ N r ~ ; . ~ is a °~r.~~a 1 ~ ' ~ ' jj~'' " -~,"'"~r'R' pa ~ ~ ,
I9 ~ ) 1 y 15583 i'~.
- ~i 1 ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ I y • ~ e,. 1 a / 1 ~
9 pI ~
~.7 Y ~ / ~ 6 ~ I it ~ i. ~l _ . ~ ~ ' Q - • ~ ~~7 ~ ~
~~I ,~1, , ~~Yc i ~ ~ q ~ III
' [ df np _ 1
' t ~ ~ ~
` . u
:;I. t i
II.~~i~\ ~ ! ~ •rl ~ • l~r a, • r:~.• ,.~iy`~+Mp~'!`~'!~iIN"'~'. ...".i. .:.xrr ~.'1M,4C"1~
,I ~ ~ I~ a
~ r
• • il,, _ r ~ . 1' 1 ~t® i~!?• • . ~ . f r ~7 ¦ C 9 ~'a a a ~ ~ j" ~ 7f ~ ~?1. .
3
~ _ r.~ i~ III - d1. O o, of ~ i~
i"
~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ S ~ - ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~e4, - ~
~ ' ~~a+~~? t ~ +~,7 ' ~ I may.
'91L GDS ' ' 3i ~ _ ~ Iiir~ y~ ~
i
r~ •o
t o
r? 1 ~ ~
F -
I w a
w 1
r
•
w'` . 1
L .
1
t:
I
~ ^~n
i
?j
• ,
I ~ ~ r $
,
1
f
~ u r ~ i
.s .
m °
h-~ J ./~L
a7 1 ~ ° ~1 ~ ~ kh ~ : Y r 'i ! 3 I r 6a'Y , a 3;Mt, l ~
yy 1 1 Kr+O I ~ 1
• Y d F •
a rt~
' i
I
. _ 2~e r _L~ r~d i ail . ~ b I ~ ~ s!1 ~ ' _ ,
7f • - 4 ~,~...r i rte, _ ~ .d.~.,.~ r , _ ~
_JLsI L_`~ ~ `IL.I!.~•" ,d`, _ ~ ~ t` •t i 1' NI" 11 N E ec
.c ~ _ ;1- ~ 5 ~ ` , • L,., ~ to ~ ~ -'H l •C At
ti ~ sex- , ~ I C J c ~ ~ 1. _ ~ ' \ ~ r _ i r
i
r _ . ~ _ ~e:~~~
f •Q,~ 1 1_`-'• ~ `11 i ~ ~ ado `~-~~r~.+r' - - i~ ~ -c ~ ~t•;wc,k~s-~`~=~ 7-
F, grow-Sc ,thd ~ ~ ` - J~~ - w N I Y ' 41 ~ ~ Jh L_'-~ ~ 'w I_ ~ liQ~ e
THS_"l ~ _ = ~ I I AciJLJI_~H +R `i ~.'~.-CL
..Y
S.. T.~ p ~ I
= v`~~ ? . i ~ I i_ J!1 - ~ ar ~i ~ a kF 3~ ~ t ter Se ~ ~ ~ i Ci II ~ '
~ ~ - Pak gar e, ran M ,al sa, ,
mo~ - ~ ~ I<, ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~~`c~= _ ~ I r F I`E L ^ I ' 2 ~ /
-
- ~ , , _ s L _ t
~ ~ t~;tr~ 'i. ~ g - _ - L a „~•le o ! 1
eea ~t~l' ~ s ~ Mi a Do , s ~ w , ~ ~ ~ o I A s rj Q
' ~ a
e•~.'a, ~ w ~rtet -..~y ,fir 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~
_ ~ 8 _
a,k .C~ n u _I-' C o I ~ CC R I ~ ~ ~
`r-JG
'~'I c' ~Y. `.?a-~;~ "L sr t ~!r Hilh Sc ~ Donald35dan • ~ - C~ _ ? ~ ~ ? ~ I ~ r!' ! _ _ _
\ t 1J r ' ~ ~ ~ ~ i ark ~ i ek CC 1• o ~ i c ~ e ~ -I_ o
- ~ ~ ~W , ~ ~u~~ I ~ op ; Rogsevelt ~
- ~ 1 ~ _ i ~ r~ ~ a ~r Park..
a ~i J
_ 'Skaovin Center ~ ~I• ;I li r _ J .1.
- _ - r, ~ _ .rc.~~G„i,~~ Ii ~ , i _a _.f~ • - i "I - II it r~ .,i ~ t
869 '~Oj,'.: ..t w; ~r fir.. a ~ _ t ` T~ f ~ ~ etl135pR Lut+~j ~
1 a: ~w.-Ji f 1 i i - r YI ( F-.~ ¦S' « ~ ~ fil2~ gtM~nl C ' : \ r ~ -^.,~y
' ~1: ;y~I i~HumboldtH~hb:' i~.~lT crli.. 1
~,t;
1 ,,,;7 42C T" ~ ~ - 1 i ~
- t. al ~~I~~ ~1,~~' a I ; 4 ~
~ C ~J ~ ~ I 1'i CC ~C ~~C I I ~ ~a h`
~ ~ % c~Parkf , v t~ ~ ' ! il~ ~ C ~f - J y ~ i"C / I I ~ ~i ~I
,
'~S' 1111 ~ ~ _ j~~~('~'jt II(~'
~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~9C{ t;~ I: ~ ~ ~ Sa..~ ° 1 i I!._i!? ~t-.I~JC E-'_i as T' N
'~~_~Seh~_ m~._•.~; _ I~. \ ~ f ~ ark - ~ / ; ( ~ 1 a ~ ~ ' ri
!L o Pen ~ ar ~I . i_ 1 ~ + y !
~C~ ~ . ~ ~ Park ~ , i _ ..f t ~ , I Bryant'' I = l'~~•. ~ ~ ~ ~ 1; ( .7
r' p,. - ~ ~ a _ -11 -:w.ET ~ 1 ~ Qatk 1. = G ~ ~ Ai~ f
r-a~''' is i ~Lr~_se~_~" L ; ~ ~'~.~'L;` '._'1C~~~ I I' ~ '1 ~ ~I'~.ti- t j JLJIJ~=1 II I . - ~~-E".' I! aeT~
r ~r\`, `~'C~Ir~ - -:a~'; I) W~,~ ~ ;~r,~I~''i'I. rig I~p zl ii'
P,,c..~ ~ ~ ;Penn , Q + x ' 1 - If
ter" ~ Lake ;-,'a: c . - .~~Z_'•'r~: .I~CC Trailer Pa~c
~t-eer sr ~ eo8 dl ~ ~ ~ ~ III- y t- _ t_J`" ~ ~J _j•Qf
~ : Lfnobin , ~ r' - ~3 'f ec0 I~ ~ I ~ ~F. : 'It 1 Va er~w .~~~r_J:
1 J Hi ?la'k~n?~ -,ice.. ~ ;.ry~^` t ~ek a
T; " YJI``'~` mss, ~I, ; ~
~ ~ i - 1 lJ ~I ai 5's?~.. ~l_ _ C LJIL': ~.i./~
>I~ ~ _ Field_• .,li. ~ ~ I e
~ !__~~I,~. "i ~ ' ~ a! 1 ~ ~II ~I_ t e~~ _I~
c ~ so
f~~ j`~T f s ..i~93Lr'~'~ ~ ~ I~r:~ II '•Ir •~I .tl ~~.~'4`~~r~~~ -
~cTank• ~ t Cln n~
J.:7 1J V 0 1T1 1 lv ~ ~ II'- ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~F t ~ ~ i' ~ ~ ~ ! \ Valley View Playfield ~ ~r.I '
~ ~ ~ w ~~'97iC~5 11 0~ ~ ~ ~ ; , ~.~L_ ~i .
' - - - ~ ~ I one- , :.~L: ~ I, ~ J C~ 1 9?O
C1 - ,>~~.~,A.~;
~~~y ttt.t.~i .s<~.; ~ 1~=~~,t _ .:,I: '~I? ~ I~--Inrr- nnn~ u
. _ p U
. o
~ D ~
-
~ r.... .
/ i
M / ~
y i ~ ~
~ ~ -
_C~ I
a
t! 17E''$OUt~RIES .
S
. _
~ ` ~ V-- .
_ - , ~ -
- ~ ~
~E TINE TR
•
REMAIN .
_ .
PARKIN R
1600 CARS
. ~ 4 STORIES
-
~ i •
- ~ ~ ~ ,
l -
V ~ 1'ii F ~
r` - OFFICE 6. r
'1~~, _ ,
.r..
IIIII~IIIIIII i iitl - ~ COr:FE~CE A eA
' t ~ ~ - ~ . ~ ` - _ = HOTEL
_ _ ,
~ ~ ~ - _ SUIII FACE PA K NC
e.` -
~ i
_ _ I
~~ii i
.
-
- tr ~ cruiA?E hK~~iWl4Y 494
•
- - - -
e
~ 6th 5T~_„
r
i ~
1 ~"•p~RK1NG R1?MP
~
t ~ ~ ~
• f
_ ~ .amt •
`7
J, .
'
'a ;
K -
t
.
~
.s
.z~~ `
,
' ~ r ` L
l
~
t~
~ ~ ~ _ b
/ ~ j ~
/ i Jam.....-~---
NORTH A
- ~ I~,
Mult~.ple Residence ~ General Tnd??sLr_ial.
I Single family pp
General Commercial. ~!ll~tl Limited lsusiness I'
r~ t
c t t T t r r r T t t r r r t t T r r Y t T ti r~ t t i r r ~ t T r + d t t t t t t t t
t t r rttrt~ rtr t i;~
~ ~ II• ~i1~1!1 II 11'11 u.~~T'T If"'~ii~{ r
w ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~j . w».
Iii i ~ ~ I I 1 11 ~ ~ 111 ~ I{ 1nH NN~1<Nt;
_ f I I ~1 ti i I~IK~~p . - - - I i I ! - i ~ ~ 1" .
~ 1 ~ y(C"/~f ~yj~~]JeEF///~///~H//~~ 1 1 „ ~ p~ ~J/,~ ,Jl~fgj' r ~u((r~
11 i. K ~ f ~~I~ ~4%A7fAG%/! l 1 ~I 11 J/ ~ F? ' ` ~'~'117~~~[~V' ~
"(1t'i I I I1T Ii 11il`'~ I it I,_i I ' ~ I { ~ ~ 1'11 P . I i {III f~ ~ I la ~ ~ °i~i~` ~~~~~l~~~..'.~ _ ~;i~. w .
N 1~ t ""-.1 1
~ IL n Il~al II II 11~~ s- ~r~~ ~ Il I ! ~ t"~I~Iif ~I I ,1,? I I I I 1 r~l 1 f l 1111111 it ~I~~ ~ + . _ . ;
~IIi11111N I1~ I If. l!d I ,I~ 111.. f f II i 11 i 1 ~ 11~1.~.?
~ ~ WOOQ l ARE 1 ( 1 ~ I I i 11 11 ~ ~ . 1
M... ~I~~I1111 Ii ~ it Il~~ _ /i , ~ 1 1{ i. 11~ ~ i I 1 i , ~
( ~ it"~ ! .1 1 1 I 1 ~ ~ ~r
. ~,~.1I N i j l L 1" 11{ I i i 1~'li ~ 11.11 I { I
u l 1
,I N I ~ ~ ~ fl ~ ~ ~'~--1 1 ~ I I iI r ! ~ I l~ ll .11 a i II i iI ~r ....w
~ 11 II II I i i I~ ` ~:~Ii' ~~~{i I~:i it ~N 1 kr) ~ i I i i I ~~ti I I I i ~ 1~ 1~ ....wctt ti• ??t~ tit? ttt~trt.n
" " , ' ' I '1 ~ r'S If MRI'N (I11HIY.I~II51/1A
..w N ~ ~ I I~, r ~ ~ 11 I II I lV I I 111 i I I I I { I 1 1 ~ • w. w „1~ 1...1.»'~
1 N ~ ~ I a~.j,~, w_ i~ if ~ ~ { I l I I ! 11 I I i ~ ~ 11111! I~
. 11 ! ~ Il Ir-+ r~ Ii~I 1 I I I I I III i 11, i 1:
I. ;1 I I I 1 1~~~ ` 11 t~ I N ! -1 11~ I I ~i I { 1111 i I I~ ' ~ w..
r??ItTT? itj ttrttttTttttttttttt r t ti trt t t
s T T T j ii tt t i 1 1 1 t? 1 t t 1 f f t I I t
:I~t~s~;:~~i~fil~~1l.I~t~~i11~~ l~r~!s3!:~~Ill~'~:::: :rs¢ :~:!~s;
t
~a
~~3
5. The proposed project will consist of an approximately 25-story office
structure encompassing approximately 500,000 gross square feet; an
approximately 375-room motel with restaurant, banquet, and coffee shop
facilities having approximately 600 seats; and an approximately 1,600-
car parking structure.
The site consists of approximately 11 acres and features a varied topo-
graphy, with a lower area at the west central property line. The north-
eastern portion of the site is covered with mature trees which are part
of the original forest areas of Richfield.
The buildings have been planned and located on the site to compliment
the site's natural features and maximize the retainage of the existing
trees. In addition to serving as an exciting development amenity, the
trees will provide a buffer between the development and the surrounding
residential areas to the northeast.
The parking structure is planned in the lower areas of the site and is
proposed to extend only one floor above grade at the 77th Avenue
entrance to the site. Parking studies have been prepared by Strgar-
Roscoe-Fausch, Inc., consulting traffic engineers. These studies
indicate considerable joint parking use between the office and hotel
structures due to staggered peak hour uses. This feature allows for
green open spaces on the site. Surface parking for the hotel will
consist of approximately 300 cars.
$5.OI•oo5~-~
Services Since 1957
ENGINEERING TESTING
In<(+r CnrlltP!1
ESOTA: Minneapolis. Hibbing;St. Cloud. Rochester. St. Paul ` ~ s BRAUN. P E c o KLUEMPw~
AHroateC Otflce~ P H ANDERSON DALE R ALLf
ORTN DAKOTA: Bismarck. Williston; MONTANA: Billings ~ iie15~EP ~ MESS CRS. rE
p ~ ~ ~k~~e"p To:
~U~ ~SP~g$5 Box 351os
Mpls., MN 55435
~ i?'~:~~ KKE Act) 941-5600
July 12, 1985 t ~
COMM. N~•
Korsunsky-Krank-Erickson Arch. Inc.
Attn: Mr. Ron Erickson, AIA
330 2nd Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55401
RE: FOUNDATION CONCEPT ANALYSIS
Cloverleaf Motel Site
NW Quad. of I-494 and 35W
Richfield, MN
Mr. Erickson: r
W$ are pleased to furnish this foundation concept analysis for
the above project. The purpose of this analysis was to research .
and summarize the available soils and bedrock information in the
area of the project and to outline potential foundation alter-
natives.
" AVAILABLE INFORMATION
The most recent conceptual plan which we have seen indicates that
a 25-story and a 10-story office tower are proposed for this.
site. In addition, a 400-room hotel and a parking ramp will also
be constructed.
The site is located in the northeast quadrant of I-494 and 35W in
Richfield and covers approximately 14 acres. The site is
currently occupied by various buildings which will be removed as
part of the development.
For our analysis, we have reviewed the soils and bedrock infor-
mation from a number of sources. These include soil data from
projects which we have been involved with in this area, area
bedrock maps and soil maps prepared by the United States Geologic
Survey.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS /SOILS AND MATERIALS
Affiliated Company for Chemical & Environmental Testing and Consulting - Braun Environmental Laboratories, Inc.
Korsunsky-Krank-Ecick~on Arch., Inc. -2- July 12, 1985
• SUMMARY OF .SOIL AND BEDROCK CONDITIONS "
The available geological data indicates that the site is in a
• gl8cial outwash region. Within this area, the predominant soils
are granular in nature with varying percentages of silt, tend to
vary in grain size, and will be intermixed with various sizes of
gravel, cobbles and possibly some boulders. The granular soils
would generally be in a loose to medium dense condition near the
surface and will tend to be denser at depth.
Underlying the granular soils, we would anticipate that strata of
cohesive soils may be encountered. Borings conducted in the
general area have occasionally encountered relatively thick
layers of clay soils below the upper sands. These clays
generally have a stiff to hard consistency.
We would not expect bedrock to be encountered at the site. Area
bedrock maps indicate that the bedrock surface is typically more
than 100 feet below the existing surface in this area.
Based on the available data, we would not anticipate that ground-
water will be encountered during. construction unless deep excava-
tions are made. However, isolated perched water conditions may
be found. These conditions would likely be caused by thin strata
of relatively impermeable soils imbedded in the granular soil.
The U.S.G.S. maps of the surface features in this area indicate
that a low area currently exists northeast of the site. We would
not anticipate that this will affect the development unless the
buildings are located near or in the low area. A copy of the
U.S.G.S. map of this area is included with this concept analysis.
PRELIMINAKY FOUNDATION ALTERNATIVES
We have extrapolated the existing data in order to provide a ten-
tative design scheme for this project. The information contained
herein should therefore not be used for final design purposes.
.Soil borings must be conducted prior to the preparation of final
foundation plans. These tentative design alternatives are being
made without the benefit of site .specific soils information.
Depending~on the magnitude of the column loads and the level of
the lowest floor of the buildings, there are a number of alter-
natives that can be considered for foundation support. Our
alternatives for foundations are:.
1) Dependent on-the lower floor slab elevation and column loads,
spread footings could be utilized on this site. Allowable
bearing pressures for such footings could likely range up to 10
kips per square foot. This bearing pressure has been utilized on
~n~~
Korsunsky-Krank-Ericson Arch., Inc. -3- 3uly 12, 1985
other structures recently built in the general area on what we
would anticipate are similar soils.
For this project, we would entieipate that the shorter towers and
ramps could be supported on spread footings. For the 25-story
tower, the column loads may require another type of foundation
support.
To utilize the high bearing. pressures at the site, additional
testing beyond the standard penetration test borings would be
required. The additional .testing should include, but not. be
limited to, pressuremeter testing. Results of these tests will
assist in providing tl~e design consultant with the optimum
bearing. pressure and will also assist. in refining estimated
settlements.
2) If settlements are found to be excessive, it may be feasible
to subcut the existing soils, stockpile them on site, and then
re-use them to refill the excavation. As the excavation is
refilled, the soils would be compacted to relatively .high den-
sities. Utilizing this approach, settlements would not only be
reduced, but a uniformly compacted surface for the foundations
and floor slab will be provided.
3) Another possible alternative would be to utilize drilled
caissons. Because bedrock is relatively deep, soil bearing
caissons could be used. This type of foundation support has been
utilized on several existing structures in the metropolitan area
and has performed very well. To utilize this, type of foundation,
t n r
bo h end bearin and skin friction resists ce a e incor orated.
g P
Projects on which these types of foundations have been utilized
have had column loads in the range of 15 kips to 3100 kips.
Maximum tip stresses have ranged from 12 kips per square foot to i
80 kips per square foot. The higher bearing capacities require
that dense to very dense. sands exist below the caisson tips.
4) Some of the buildings on adjacent properties are supported on
driven piling. Given the anticipated soil conditions of the
site, it is our opinion that driven pipe piles or monotubes would
provide adequate support for the structure. Based on our
experience with driven piling in this area, we would anticipate
that pile capacities in the range of 100 tons per pile could be
obtained with lengths less than 100 feet.
S UNh1~IARY
Predominantly granular soils are anticipated in the proposed
construction area. Limited amounts of fill may exist in areas of
the site, particularly if old cisterns, septic tanks or other
buried containment tanks were constructed and subsequently aban-
Korsunsky-Krank-Erickson Arch., Inc. -4- July 12, 1985 /~ci~
doped. Groundwater will likely not be encountered at this site
unless deep excavations are proposed. The type of foundation
support will be dependent on the column loads, settlement which
can be tolerated, depth of basements, and the desired bearing
pressure.
GENERAL
It has been a pleasure to have been of service on the preliminary
phases of this project. If we can be of additional assistance in
evaluating the information contained in this preliminary report
or in conducting the necessary soil borings, analysis and recom-
mendations for design purposes, please contact us at your
convenience.
Very truly yours,
BRAJN ENGINEERING TESTING, INC.
t~l ~~''~~~~-lam ` _ ~~~~n
Michael M. Heuer, P.E.
Project E gin r
C. G. Kruse, P.E.
V-ice President - Engineering
iV1iY1H / CGK : g e c
The cOnten! c' tn:5 reDOrt 2nC Su Ortinb COCU meets are tOr the exClusrve use Of the atltlres5ee In the absence of our poor w~rt!E^ appro+a" ~
Pp
we maKe no representation a~~ assume no respons~b:~~!y to any o!ner parties recartl~n0 sucn c0n!e nt ~ _
~ v ~ rERS TA TE 694
- ~ t.,..;_... ~ MINNEAPOt.~ (CH.1 8 Ml.
:a~POrrs ~ sj~.a,.v~~r~ .:~{~J7f 17'34"
~ ~
~ . ri~et`t~ r ~i . ~ ~q • ~ ~V sr ~ 35w ~ xh
r' ~ C,4t 1~ ~ ~ t ` ~ ~ y,v ~ ! ~ - s i' 4i +at ~s~';i',~,t 4 q~ ~
e4~~. :trst 'i+:.~i ~d': ~ .s ~~3 ~.~i TY~ '+'r'`s t+r y~.•+`r' syi,yi~~ t'~
r r.
~ sU. t+` ap.+p ~ , ti... iirt ~ t 1 ~lC~ 11 - F y .F~ ~ s~
r ys ~zL` sT + ~ ' r
~
~ ~ - ~r High: S ~ pia i d s _ ~ c.._:,, ~ _
~ a ~j
YI i~
_ ~
--Sort t \
/iis _ ~ ,
0
'~ShoPP~~ ~ enter ! ~ ~ g5 ,_1~1
~
J
,f ~
t~: ~ .
_ _ ~
- 1 r1 ; _ :tom $ - t~'r _ ~ ' y i ~
w 4~
• •
y . a y ~ ~ ~ .
g5-o1-oo5y-OI
~l/;
GME CC3NSULTANTS, INC.
• CONSULTING ENGINEERS
2083 East Center Circle ! Mmneapohs. MN 55441 /.612/559-1859
April 20, 1985
Mr. Jerry Pelletier
The Pelletier Corporation
493.0~West 77th Street
Edina, Minnesota 55435 GME Project No. 787
RE: Invoice for preliminary subsurface exploration for proposed
office towers at I-494 and I-35W in Richfield, Minnesota
ENGINEERING ,
Services of Principal Engineer '
4 hours @ $75.00/hour $ 300.00
Services of Soil Engineer .
4 hours @ $40.00/hour $ 160.00
Services of Secretary and Draftsman
4 hours @ $25.00/hour $ 100.00
SUBTOTAL $ 560.00
FIELD EXPLORATION ,
Mobilization/demobilization of drill crew
and equipment
1 hour @ $85.00/hour $ 85.00
Boring layout and elevations
1 1/2 hours @ $80.00/hour $ 120.00
Drilling and sampling operations
7 hours @ $95.00/hour $ 635.00
SUBTOTAL $ 840.0 0
TOTAL $1,400.00
NOTES: Net due upon receipt.
Accounts aver 30 days are subject to a finance charge
of 1 1/2$ per month.
' Please indicate GME Project Number and date of invoice
on your remittance.
Thank you!
GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS
WILLIAM C. KWASNY, P.E. THOMAS P. VENEMA, P.E. WFLLIAM E. ELOEMENDAL. E.LT.
,
~
i
I
1
PRELIMINARY SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION
FOUNDATION FEASIBILITY REPORT
PROPOSED OFFICE TOWERS
I-494 AND I-35W
RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
THE PELLETIER CORPORATION
GME PROJECT N0. 787
I
i
GME CONSULTANTS,-lNC.
A zil 20, 1985 CONSULTING ENGINEERS
P 2083 tasc Center Circle / Mmneapol~s. MN 55aa1 / 612/559-1859
The Pelletier Corporation
493.0 West 77th Street, Suite 180
Edina, Minnesota 55435
Attention: Mr. 3erry Pelletier GME Project No. 787
RE: Preliminary subsurface exploration for proposed office
towers at I-494 and I-35W in Richfield. Minnesota
Gentlemen:
In accordance with your acceptance. of our proposal of April 12,
1985, we have completed this preliminary subsurface exploration.
Enclosed please-find the report which we have prepared. Three
copies of this report have been sent to the above address.
The soil conditions in the north and south portions of the site
where the proposed office towers are to be located, consisted of
loose non-organic sand. These conditions will require special
correction, by a technique such as deep densification, or the use
of driven piles in order to support the proposed structure. Ln
the west central portion of the site, compressible organic peat
• was found to a depth of about 14 feet.; underlain by loose non
organic granular soils. In•the eastern part of the .low area,
loose granular soils were encountered without the presence of the
peat. Soil .correction would. be needed for construction of a .
proposed multi-story parking ramp in this area. Details on these
recommendations are given in the text of this report. .
If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact
us.
Sincerely,
GME ONSULTANTS,~ INC.
Wi 11 i am C . Kw ny , P . E . I hereb7 certify,3hat this plea, sps~io~t~+a.
Pr' ipal Engineer or report was preparsd bT m• or uada; m~
direst. supervisi a sad that I aza tf• duly
Regis ro a:ioaal EagiaNr ui>;dtlr
la ats o Miaae~pEa:
Thomas Paul Venema, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer 13~ br / Jx4. /`t~?i 1~
WCK:TPV:kdk ~
GEOTECHNICAL • MATERIALS • ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS
WIIUAM C. KWASNY, P.E. THOMAS P. VENEMA, P.E. WILLIAM E. BIDEMENDAI_ E.LT.
a
• INTRODUCTION
The proposed project would consist of two office towers
approximately 15 stories high, with a multi-story parking ramp.
' Final design specifications, including building locations, are not
1 yet available as of the date of this report. However, we
understand that the buildings are to be located .on the higher
elevations to the north and south sides of the site. The parking
ramp would probably be built in the central portion of the site at
the lower elevations. The area which is presently poorly drained
and covered with swamp grass in the west central portion of the
site may be excavated to form an open pond as part of the
landscaping.
The purpose of this report is to describe the soil and groundwater
conditions encountered in our borings; to review and evaluate
these conditions with respect to the proposed project; and to
present .recommendations for feasible methods of foundation design
which can be considered for the project.
FIELD EXPLORATION/LABORATORY TESTING
Four borings were drilled for this project as shown on the
enclosed Soil Boring Location Diagram. The number of borings was
determined by Mr. Jerry Pelletier and Mr. William G. Kwasny, P.E.
of GME Consultants, Inc. The boring locations were chosen by GME
Consultants. These locations are shown on the enclosed Soil
Boring Location Diagram. Ground surface .elevations were
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
a
Mr. Jerry Pelletier 2 April 20, 1985
determined at each boring location referenced to USGS datum. The
' benchmark for this was the southeast flange bolt on a fire hydrant
on 77th Street West and Emerson Avenue. Accoring to the City of
Richfield, this benchmark is at elevation 836.36 USGS.
~ The borings were drilled with a truck mounted Mobile B-24 rig.
Hollow stem augers were used to advance all of the borings to full
~ depth; casing and wash water were not used in the drilling
operations. Soil samples were obtained by the split barrel method
in accordance with ASTM: D 1586-67. During the sampling
j procedures, the Standard Pentration Values (N-values, blows per
foot) were recorded. These values are shown on the respective
~ boring logs. The soil samples were preliminarily classified in
the field, sealed. in glass jars to prevent moisture loss, and
I
returned to .our laboratory for examination and classification by a
~ soil engineer..
Groundwater levels were noted during and after completion of the
1
drilling operations. These water levels are shown in the lower
~ left corner of the respective logs. A discussion of the
groundwater conditions in the borings is presented under the Site
1 Conditions Section of this report.
Because of the preliminary nature of this exploration, and the
fact that granular soils were encountered, the testing program
consisted of a soil engineer examining each sample to determine
GME CONSULTANTS. INC.
i
_ _ ~
P ~
Mr. Jerry Pelletier 3 A r'1 2
p i 0, 1985
the major and minor soil components, while .also noting the color,
~ degree of saturation, and any lenses or seams found in the
f
' ~ samples. The soils were then visually/manually classified on the
~ basis of texture and plasticity in accordance with the Unified
Soil Classification System. The capitalized symbol in parentheses
I
following the written description on the boring logs. is the
i estimated group symbol based on this system. A chart describing
the properties under this system is included in Appendix of this
~ report.
I The soils were grouped by type into the strata shown on the boring
' logs. The stratification lines shown are approximate; insitu, the
~ transition between soil types may be gradual or abrupt in both the
horizontal and vertical directions.
i
We will retain the soil samples from this program for 30 days
after the date of this report. If you wish to have the samples
retained beyond this time, we ask that you please advise us;
otherwise, the samples will be discarded.
SITE CONDITIONS
Topography/Surface Features
The topography of the site at the time of drilling descended from •
north, east, and south, into a depression in the center of the
site. The change in elevation from the highest elevation to the
GME CONSULTANTS, INt.
_ ~L~ 1
Mr. Jerry Pelletier 4 April 20, 1.985
I lowest part of the site in the depression was approximately 25
I feet. It is our estimate that the semi-circular depression
extended approximately 254 feet from the frontage road on the
west, to the point where the surface rose on the east side.
{ The surface vegetation at the site had distinct demarcation.
Mature oak trees were found at alI points on the higher
1 elevations. Where the site began to descend into„the depression,
the surface was covered with grass with only a few popple trees.
In the west central portion of the site, an area of apparent poor
I drainage was found. We learned from the owner of the existing
house•at the north side of the site, that a lake formly existed in `
this area prior to the construction of I-35W. There was no
information as to the depth or width of this lake. The area was
covered with typical wetland growth at the time of our drilling.
It was apparent that several feet of fill had been placed on the
south side of the side around the motel. Protection had been
1
i provided around the bases of the mature trees.
Soil Conditions
The soil conditions found in the borings are shown on the ~
i
respective logs.
E
I
In boring 1, drilled in the middle of the wetland area, we `
encountered loose compressible organic soils interbedded with
f
4N![ CONtULTANTl. tNC.
¦
I
~ y~-,~
Mr. Jerry Pelletier 5 April 20, 1985
loose sand and silt to a depth of about 19 feet. This was
underlain by Loose fine sand to the termination of the boring at
20 feet. The relative density of the soil, based on the N-values,
was found to increase at the end of the boring. In boring 2,
medium dense silty sand and sandy silt was found to 9.5 feet
overlying gray fine sand to the end of the boring at 20 feet. We .
did not encountered any organic soil in t-his boring.
' Zn borings 3 and 4, about 1.8 feet of surficial dark brown silty
sand topsoil was encountered, overlying loose brown and gray fine
sand to the termination depth of both borings at 30 feet. Zn
boring 4, the relative density of this soil was somewhat higher
with the N-values ranging 'from 9 to 21.
Groundwater Conditions
In borings 1 and 2, groundwater was encountered at depths of 4.5
to 6 feet. Zn the two borings drilled at the higher elevations ~
groundwater was encountered at depths of 29.5 and 25 feet. The
groundwater table corresponded to approximately elevation 800 to ;
802 on the date of drilling. .
The roundwater table will var sea o
g y s nally and annually depending
1 on local amounts of precipitation, evaporation, surface runoff,
and infiltration. At the lower elevation, the groundwater table ~
may rise to a level very close the ground surface depending on
runoff and drainage patterns in the area.
• ~
GME CONSULTANTS, LNG
`~~n
G'!
i
Mr. Jerry Pelletier 6 Aprii 20, 1985
REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussion
At the proposed office building location on the higher ground, the
soils were granular and non-organic. However, the loose
conditions of these soils would preclude the use of normal spread
footings for structures on the order of ZO to 15 stories in
height.. Further, routine compaction methods such as subcutting
and densification with vibratory rollers would not sufficiently
densify the soil to support the magnitude of structural load's
anticipated. Rather., it is our opinion that the feasible methods
of foundation design would include deep densification by
vibraflotation, or the use of driven files, either concrete filled
P
steel pipe piles or steel~H piles. It would also be possible to
consider the use of a rigid mat foundation or a post-tensioned mat
foundation. Drilled piers (caissons) do not appear to be a '
feasible alternative for the soil conditions found in the borings
at this site.
If a structure was to be planned in the low wet area in the west
central part of the site, driven piles would be the most feasible
foundation type. Excavation/replacement to a depth of about 20
feet is normally not economical. A structural slab and underslab
gas venting system would be required in this area. If possible,
the buildings should be located in areas with more favorable soil
4'
GME CONSULTANTS. INC.
t~/
Mx~. Jerry Pelletier 7 April 20, 1985
.conditions to reduce foundation construction costs.
If the multi-story parking structure is to be built in the
easterly part of the lower elevation, the non-organic soils would
be too loose to support the anticipated. structural loads with
normalspread footings.. For this structure, the alternatives
recommended above, deep densification or driven piles, would also.
be recommended.'. A mat foundation would not normally be feasible
for. a parking structure due to the Large area of the building
footprint. -
For any of the foundation alternatives which are feasible for this
site, additional borings extending to depths on the order of 90 to
100 feet, as well as insitu testing by the pressuremeter, would be
required.
C Deep Densification (Vibroflotation)
I For this technique, granular soils are densified in-place by
inserting a large vibratory probe. The soils can be compacted to
l depths of 50 feet or greater by this method. The granular soils ;
that we found on the site would be suitable for the use of
vibrof lotation.
I After- the soils are properly compacted by this method, normal
1 spread footings can be used with desigm bearing pressures on the
order of 8,000 to 10,000 pounds per square foot. If this
GME CONSULTANTS, tNC.
Mr. Jerry Pelletier 8 April 20, 1985
alternative is chosen, we recommend that the architect and
structural engineer contact the firms that provide this type of
service to obtain estimates for the work. There are no firms
located directly in Minneapolis which provide deep densification.
Among the f firms who provide this type of work in the Upper
Midwest, are- Vibroflotation Foundation Company, Cementation
LTD, and GRN Hayward Baker.
When vibroflotation is used, a follow-up exploration program is
typically employed using additional borings and pressuremeter
testing to determine that the specified degree of compaction has
been properly achieved.
t
Pile Foundations
Due to the magnitude of the structural loads anticipated and the
soil conditions encountered, driven piles would be a feasible
~ foundation alternative for the proposed project. The piles which
would be feasible for use on this site would include concrete
filled steel pipe piles, steel H piles, or a composite pile
consisting of a Monotube tapered fluted tip with a steel pipe
riser. The exact depth to which the piles would have to be driven
cannot .be determined at this point •since significantly deeper
borings would be needed. Depending on the location and nature of
the bearing stratum for the piles, design pile capacities on the
order of 50 to 200 tons would be feasible.
_ i_
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
w
_ I
7 7
/ c?~.J
e
Mr. Jerry Pelletier 9 April 20, 1985
I~
~If pile foundations are to be driven in areas where loose sands
were found and no organic soils were encountered, the floor slabs
could be cast on grade. If piles are driven through compressible.
organic soils, a structural floor slab should be used. Further,
there would not be any significant downdrag on the piles due to
the absence flf a compressible stratum.
t- Mat Foundation
A mat foundation could be considered for the office towers,
depending on the finished floor elevations of the basements, and
the structural loads. A post-tensioned mat could also be
I
considered. Typically, a mat foundation for a 10 to IS story ~f
4
structure would exert 1,000 to 2,000 psf net contact pressure at
the base. Additional borings and testing would be .needed to
define the soil parameters for a mat foundation. i
.
1 Basement Design
If the office towers are to have basements, we recommend that a
~I perimeter and underdrain system be considered, along with proper
dampproofing of the exterior walls. As a general recommendation,
the structural design of the walls should be based on an
equivalent fluid pressure of 60 pounds per cubic foot for lateral
i
stresses against the walls.
The lowest Level of the parking structure would be open to ambient
1
• i
. ~ ~
• ~ ~
GME tONSULTANTS, tNt.
~ ~
Mr. Jerry Pelletier 10 April 20, 1985
air temperatures and would also be constructed relatively close to
the groundwater table at the lowest elevation on the site.
Consideration should be given to the need for insulating
' foundations in this structure to provide protection from frost
penetration. In .open areas free of snow, frost can often
penetrate significantly deeper than 4 feet.
CONS'fiRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Because of the .preliminary nature of this report, only
generalizations can be made regarding earthwork construction
considerations on the site. Depending on final grade for a
parking structure in the low areas of the site, the groundwater
table may be encountered during foundation construction.
Alternatively, the grades could be planned so as to avoid
construction below the groundwater table.
The contractor for this project should develop a comprehensive
erosion protection plan, to avoid excessive erosion on the side
` slopes into the depressed area.
L The sdewalls of all excavations for this project, as well as any
utility trenches, must be adequately sloped, or shee*_ed, and
braced in accordance with pertinent OSHA regulations, in order to
provide adequate protection to personnel working on the project.
1 The granular soils encountered on this site mayappear to be
Y GME CONSULT4NTS, fNC
¦
~
Mr. Jerry Pelletier 11 April 20, 1985
stable at vertical or near vertical slopes upon first being
excavated. However, this stability can suddenly fail due to such
reasons as drying or saturation of the side slopes. This can
cause dangerous .conditions for .personnel working in the
excavations. The responsibility to provide safe working
conditions.. on this site is solely that of the contractor. This
responsibility is not borne in any manner by GME Consultants, Znc.
GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS
This is a preliminary soil report prepared to evaluate the
feasibility of different types of foundations for the proposed
project. We have' reviewed the concept of spread footings with
special deep densification, driven piles, and a mat foundation.'
When planning for the project has developed definitive building
.grades and loads, we recommend that we be contacted to plan for
additional borings and field and laboratory testing.
` The soil conditions on this site varied, depending on location at
I higher or lower elevations, and also in the relative density of
the granular soil. Additional variations should be anticipated
across the site. Zt is for this reason that we recommend that
( additional borings be drilled at the spec if is building locations.
The soil and groundwater conditions for this preliminary
I subsurface exploration were determined at four locations. These
conditions are pertinent only at the boring locations and under
I GME CONSULTANTS, INC. '
U~y
Mr. Jerry Pelletier I2 April 20, 1985
the environment existing at the time of our subsurface
exploration. Additional variations should be anticipated across
the site. No warranty, either expressed or implied, is presented
in this report with respect to the soil and groundwater
conditions.
APPENDIX:
Soil Boring Location Diagram
i General Notes
Soil Boring Logs
Unified Soil Classification Chart
I
f
i.
GME CONSUITANT8, INC.
_ _ i
~~f
^ ~ ~
• .
.West 76th Street
Existing
r ~ r r ~ ~ ~ 1
6-3 house
~ ~ ` -.r- Emerson .
~ Wetlands j ~ x(828.6) Avenue
[ ~ ~ ~ t~ South
1 +
1 ~
` ~1
~1 B-1. B-2 ~ ~
1 (806.0) (810.9) ~ ~
~ ~
tt \
t ~ ~
~ ~ ~ West 77th Street
~ ~i ~ B-4
(824.7)
~ ~
Existing ,
motes
Frontage
l Road
11 i-494 R.O.W.
t` i'
~
i ~
4
i
• Scale ~
+ ~ ~
0 100 200
1 Boring Location Diagram
GME CGNSULTANTS INC.
' ~ osed Office Towers +
p ~ 2083 EAST CENTER CIRCLE
I-494 and I-35W MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55~t1
Richfield, Minnesota WCK ~ TPV ~4-24-85 ~ 787
~~f1
GENERAL NOTES
GRILLING 6 SAt?4PL{NG SYMBOLS:
SS Spilt Spoon - 1 318" 1.0» 2" D.0» unlees 05 ; Ostarts'ery Sampler - 3" 5halby Tuba
otherwise noted HS Hollow Stem Auger
ST Shelby Tube - 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted WS Wan Sample
PA Power Auger FT : Fish Trait
08 Diamond Bit - NX: BX: AX RB Rock Bit
AS Augar Sample 8S Bulk Sample
.!5 Jar 5amp)e ~ PM Pressunmeter test - in situ
VS Vane Shear
Standard "N" Penetratitxt: 8'lows per foot of a f 40 pound hammer falling 30 inches on a 2 inch 00 split spoon, except
where noted.
WATER LEVEL MEASUREMENTSYMBOLS:
WL Water Lewi
WCI Wet Caw In
OCI Dry Cave In
' W5 While Sampling
WO : While OriNirg
B.CA : Before Casino Removal .
ACR: After Casino Removal
A8 After Boring
Water lewls indicated on the boring logs are the lewls meewred in the boring at the times indicated. In pervious soils, the
indicated elevations are considered reliable Around water levels. In imperious soils, the accurate determination of ground
vvater elevations ~is not passible in even several days observation, and additional evidence of Around water elevations must
be sought.
~iRADATIAN QES(;RIPTICEN 8 TE.RMINQLQGY:
Coarse Grained pr Gnnulsr Solis have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a it 200 slew; they are described as:
boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 5096 of their dry weight retained on s 200 sieve; they
a?e described a: etays or elayty silts if they are cohesive, and silts it they are non<ohesive. In addition to gradation,
granular eAts are defined on the basis of their relativt in-place density and tine grained soils on the basis of their strength or
consistcncy, and their plasticity.
Major Descriptive Termis)
Component lOf Components Also Pereentof
Of Sample Size Range Present in Sample) Dry Weight
Boulders Owr 8 in. t200mm) Trsee t _ g
Cobbles 8 in, to 3 in. Littl• 10 - ~g
(?OOmm to 75mm),
Gravel 3 in, to #4 sieve Some ~ _ 34
t75mm to 2mm)
Sand #4 to #200 slew And 35 - 50
!?mm to .074mm1
Silt Passing jay 200 sieve
(0:074mm to 0.005mm)
Clay Smaller than O.OOSmm
CONSISTENCY OF tX)HESIVE SO{LSD RELATIVE DENSITY OF C;RANUI_AR S i ;Z;
Unconfined Carp.
Strength. Qu. tsf Consistency N - Blows/ft.. Relative Density
< OZ5 Very Soft 0 - 3 Very Loose
0.25 - 0.49 Soft 4 - 9 Loose
0.50 - 099 Medium (Firm) 10 - 29 Medium Dtnse
1.00 - 1.99 Stiff 30 - 4A Dense
2.00 - 3.99 Very Stiff 50 - 80 Very Dense
4.00 - 8..00 Hard 80+ Extremely Dense
>8,00 Yery Hard
GiKE CON5Ub'£~,AITS, INC.-
,
_ 1
LOCI OF 80RtNCi NO. t 7~
PROJECT SIfE 1-l91 and 1-35M
_ Proposed Office Towers _ _Rtchfleld, t+trtnesota
OMNER -~--T J _ARCHITECT-EN„1NEER - - -
The Pelletier Corporation
4- ItMt,ONrINFP fQV^t+l SVN Stpf Nf,IN f1~Y9 ~7
a "
W W 1 ? ~ ~ S -
m t~S+
=Q Z ~ W ~ DESCRIPTION OF MATER1At ` m I WATER
r
F y W ~ ~ ` ~ CONTENT 1.
O W ~ W ~ ~ W y ~ S1~NO~nO N PFME•~
iMH1 IaIOWS. rt ~
d ~ _
,.`I H ~ s ~ SURVACE ELEVATION ~ 806,0 ma t0 20 J(+ 17
Dark brown to black slightly organic silty ftne 2 ® `
1 SS 1.5" sand. with roots -very loose • wet - (Ol-SN)
l
2 SS Dark gray to black fine sand, trace silt very 3
3.5' loose - tn~ist - (SP_SMl
Black slightly trgentc fine sandy silt. with roots - t
~ 3 SS s's' verv loosr -mist. - !(ll 1 1
Dark gray fine sand and-slightly organic sandy slit. 1
~ 6' trace roots -very loose - Iroist - (SP-DL) ~ ~ I '
4 SS alacx organic tine sandy sett. trace roots, strong
organic odor -very loost -wet - (OH) ~ 5 ® i
Dark gray to black tine sand and slightly orgarn C ~ ;
9' sandv silt - verv teq~P _ tnt _ ISP_nl 1 I
~t 5 SS 1 ® ~
Gray fine sand and fine sandy silt -very loose -
„ 6 S5 ~
16'
bray and black organic silt. trace well detolllposed
organics and wood chips -very soft -wet - (OL)
_ _ 1`~I'
cu 7 SS bray fine sand., trace silt -median dense wet - f5P) 14 ~ I
i
_ . i
End of boring at 20 feet
Hollow stem auger used full depth ,
Borehole backfilled with cuttings
f
~ ~
1
1
] i
i ~ i
~ i
i
WATER tEVEt OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4.17-BS _ ;
w t . St~_ 6 feet. Mtli~.~dr11]_ing____ 6ME CONSULTANTS. INC. BORING COM6tET_E_D ~ 4-17-85 - - _
w.t. = 4.5 feet after boring aiG B-24 ~ FoIaEMAN ~ROK
VV t tWi EAaT GENTEII CtItCLE
_ MNN[A?OIK.YtMNEtOTAMMI DRAWN YDP APPROVED HCK
_ _ JOB ~ 787 SHEET 1 of 4
_ - - _ _ The stratification lines represent the approximate boundaries
hetwecn soil types, msrtu the transition may be gradual
~C)<3 Or 80r~11VG 2
PROJECT SITE
I-494 and I-35:
Proposed Office towers Richfield, Minnesota
OWNER ARCHITECT-ENGINEER
The Pelletier Corporation '
_ UN~pNC~NED COMPRESSIVE STRE?+GTM TONShT?
W -
I ~
~ ~ ~ J 2 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL N ~ I ~ WATER 4 S
W Z w ~ U ~ m CONTENT ~b
W
_ ~ lY- W t V ~ < STANCARO PENETR•tON tBLOWS/FOOTI
~ < 2 < SURFACE ELEVATION 810.9 a w ~
~ a ; w ~ Z t0 20 30 40 50
~ 1SS 3
2SS \
Light gray to light grayish brown 24
fine sand loose to 2', medium
3SS dense below 2' -moist - (SP)
ra lg
4SS
8~ 13
~ .Gray silty fine sand and fine sandy
E
111- 8~5 silt -medium dense -wet • (SM-ML}
9 ~
a
f 1.,~ 6SS
Gray fine sand, trace silt -few 9 ~ '
i
t seams of silty fine sand -loose. j
c to medium dense -wet - (SP-SM)
7S5 18
End of boring at 20 feet ~
HolloN stem auger used full depth
Borehole backfilied with cuttings
f_
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS 80R1NG STARTED 4-I /-G~
L.~I 6 feet while drilling GMECONSULTANTS,INC. 80RINGCOMPLe~eiJ 4-17-85
w.L. = 6 feet after bOrinQ 2083 EAST CENTER CIRCLE RIG 8-24 DRILLER RDK
~ L MINNEAPOLIS, MINNE50TA 55441 DRAWN WOP APPROVeD WCK
JOBS 787 SHEET 2 t3f 4
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
GME/IPC-t/84
_ lOG OF BORING. 3
~o.lECT ~ srTE I-494 and I-35W ~~'-~l~
Proposed. Office Towers Rfichfield, Minnesota
~1INER ARCHITECT-ENGINEER i
The Pelletier Corporation
uNCONF~NEO con~PaesswE srRENOrr~ roN,~r'
-O -
w C9 OESCRIPTtON OF MATERIAL j ? 3 4 S
m W < f- ~ WATER
2 W ~ ~ ~ m CONTENT ~
ii W < U ~ ~ STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS/FOOT; '
a Z < ~ SURFACE ELEVATION 82$• 6 a w ? '
~ ~ < 3 rn ~ N ¢ Z 10 20 30 40 50
. ~ i
= iSS- ~ Dark gray slightly organic silty ~ 5
1•$ fine sand, trace roots -loose -
'2SS' ~ moist - (SM-OL} (topsoil) ~
5
~ Yellowish brown fine sand, trace. ~ ~ ~
3SS silt -loose -moist - (SP) 5
6.0
4SS 4
_ I I
5SS 5
. ~
- Light brown to light gray fine
sand, trace silt -loose to medium ~
S dense -moist to damp - (SP-SM) 7
J
I I
!
7SS I
~ 9
22' y ~ r
1
8SS 12
. ,
Light grayish brown fine to medium
sand, trace gravel and silt -
_ mediula dense -moist to wet - (SP) I
9SS ~ 14 ® ~ ~ ~
End of boring at 30'
Hollow stem auger used full depth !
Borehole backfilled with cuttings
TER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS t30RING STAn ~ W 4-~ /-i;$j I
:L. feet whip dril'linc GMECONSULTANTS,INC. BORING COMPLETED ~-17-85 '
29.5 feet after bori na 20a:t,EAST cr=LATER ctRC>.E RtG R-~4 t?RILLER ~QK ~ j
- MINNEAPOLt3, MINNESOTA 55411 DRAWN WOP APPROVES WCK
.lf~8>r 787 (SHEET 3 of 4
Ttte atratlfication tines represent approximate boundaries I
between soli types: insitu the transition may be gradual
- i
LOG Of 80RiNG 4
PROJECT SITE I-494 and I-35M
Proposed Office Towers ( Richfield, Minnesota '
OWNER ~ ' ARCHITECT•ENGINEER
The Pelletier Corporation .
_ UNCONFINED COMPRESSNE STRENGTH TONS/FT 2
~ ~ '0"
W Z DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL ~ ' ? WATER , 5
m CONTENT ~
~ ~W ~ ~ r
W a ~ J j W
~ a ~ w ~ U ~ < ST#NOARO PENETRATION (8lOw5rfOOTj
< °z Q ~ SURFACE ELEVATION 824.7 a W ~
~ N < 3 H ~ `n ¢ Z t0 20 30 ~0 50
Dark brown to gray slightly organic 5
1SS, 1.7' silt fine sand,
y trace roots -
2SS 3.5 loose - moost - (SM-OL) (topsoil) 1 7
~ / '
Yellowish brown fine sand, trace ,
3SS silt -loose -moist - (SP) g
h ~ ~
4SS 9
i ~ .
5SS - g ~ .
6SS 16 ~
- Light gray and light brown fine
= sand, trace silt -loose to medium
dense -damp to wet - (SP)
19 ~
E •
1 I
8SS ~ 13 ~
E
- 'Yellowish brown to gray fine to
medium sand, trace gravel -medium
29• dense -wet - (SP)
9SS I 241 ~ ~
I r
End of boring at 30 feet
Hollow stem auger used full depth -
- Borehole backfilled with cuttings
WATER LEVEL 08SERVATIONS BORING STARTED 4-1 / -ti5
!W.L 1 25 feet wh i 1 e dri 11 i na GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BARING COMPLETED 4-1 ~,5 ` ;
I L ~ ~5 feet aftar hr~ri nj~ ~ EAST CENTER CIRCLE RIG 6-24 DAIILER ROK
L MINNEAPOLIS. MINNESOTA 558tt DRAWN wO~ APPROVED WCK
J08« 787 sHEET 4 of 4
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types: insitu the transition may be gradual. i
~f~,~
j>
UNIFIED 80lL CCAlSBtl=1CATIClN SYSTEM
c~
•?Yloea ! . is Typiesi lsiserste , ~ ataslffe~ttien aitsris
= HValFgadad lt, !?Mlrnd Oao lOioi=
f3W mi~tturss, llttia or no firws Cy Gt a p~a? than Ct'Ot s~aa L 1 srtd 3
~ ~ a -
GP praC 1 , 4 fib- ~ ~ Na tltaatinp sf! , ,bn raga fa t31M
z ~ send n+istuns, Wttla or no fins
~
~ ~ $
z ~ _ ~ d Silty pavNs, prawFaatddk A
t ~ ~ QM $ ~ ~ ttarbarp limitsG . "A"
~ ~ u • " ~ d ~ ~Q lino ar P.1. Ifs than 4 Above A !im with P.i.
` ~ ~ ~ p = .Q r Nand 7 ara bOI`
~ z 3 ~ E adJn. o.... r.quirinq us.
g ~ ~ a o~ ~+r•1? tom. R~+~+r ~ ~ ~ ~ = Ate.rba9 iFmta aiaor. "A" a dual symeois
- c - t trimuna ~ ~ nna with P,1. paatar than 7
~ ,
-
Waii~radad andR /?wa11y ~ ~ ~ Oso lD~l
Ilw a~ndit. little or na Areas Ot-o pn.nr th.n a: ce•O~o~~ t. 1 and s
~ -F ~
S •a $ F.. ~ fPsdsd ~Ih ~ -Not ntaatt , J all prsdation requirement. for sw
. ~ ~ asnds, Iittb er no finaa ~ ~
c ~~Z d j5=~
s s
~ g
" limits bslow'A"
` ~ ~ ~ ~ SM - Sihy sands, asrd~ant mixtures ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ tine or P 1. Ifs tiwt 4 .Units pbttinp b Mtd+ad
£ - $ ~ ° ~ o ~ s ~ ~ sons with Pa. t. , 4
~ ~ g'a ~ ' end 7 an ! . t?na ws
~ Clayey »nds, aatd-day ~x• ~ ~ ~ ~ a Atterbarp omits a.. «A. b~oK.lrin~ use a dual aym-
turat ~ Rne with P.1. preistsr that 7
S
• in. ~ : fe silts and vary fins
ssndt, todt flan, silty w day
ML ~
$ ~ ~ pnd~ N~day~y ant: { ! I i { ~
t _ _ For dash. , i a f~nagsutsd . ~
~ ~ ilium plastidty, ti~lY daYS. prairrd sdh. a ~ r
+ ~ E CL sandy days, fifty days. lean ~ . Atterbarp Limits plottlnp M
~ . days - hatd+ed area an ; . . .lire. dssi-
rE 9 -_ttutions nquirinp use a dust ~ i
d
~ Orpa+k silts and . k silty ~ - ryrrnboh. ~ ~ ~ `
OL ~ x ~Equatbn a Afina:
days a low plsetiEity ~ Pl~0.73 tLL -201 , ~
~ i i i ~ I
Q = ~ t ~ is i I
In . k ants, mi... x or 'a - - ~ ~
_ ~ N1H dirtomaeaous /ins sandy or ~~1~ ~OH MH ,
silty soils. elsetk tlks ~ ~?r N
~ , ; ~
~ ~ s: ~
• ~ . I ~ 1
$ " Irtapsnk days a high Alas- -CL- ~i~ ' 1
~ w ~ tidty, fat elsys i
~ ~ E 10 ' ;
c
~ 9 ~ 7 ~
r ~ ` 4.......L~~~ La OL. i J ~ ~ ~
Orpsnk days a m.dtum to ~
• ~ OH A"tyh plasticity, organic silq ~ ~--i ~ I ~
0 10 40 30 10 SO f30 70 80 90 tOd
Liquid Link i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ and char hipfily orpsnit Pitstieky Chart !
io
- -
y~ iy
UNIFIED SOIL CLABa1FICATION EYBTEM
orsr?
~Or ~°ra T1?Viad ~ awlaa Laloratory alawltk~tiott Mtaria
w.lap?ad.d prs~raMt, ~r.v.liand ~ _o•e ~o>als
Gw n+ixturas, ILttM er no tires fu Ct a ~K N+an 4•Dt sae 1 f and ~
~ ~g _ ~
g
a ~ GP ' P ' try f~N ~ ~ Nat nt.atinp ail prsdation raqukan+ants ter G1M
~ . ~ and mixtuna. Nttla a no floes
~
~ ~ d
~ ~ ~ ~ GM ~
t~~wal:. prawi~anddh ~ ~ ~ Alt . , Nn+ib f, •'A'
~ u • ~ ? to line or P.1. !as than 4 /fbayr 'A' lir» whh Pd.
~ ~ ~ ~ z° 3 ~ E i i s and 7 an bor
dr/JM Olaat raqulrlnp Vsr
~ 1~' E GC o•yY.9ra~+d•d1,iY ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Atts , limits above "A" d dud ayn+bds
r ~ ~ ` mlxtvr+sa ~ tint with ?.1. praanr than 7
- - ~ .
waliindad ands. pwa1ly ~ $ oas f0~!
s - ~ aw
~ ~ ~ sands, ilttN or ne finaa ~ ~ 5,
his fir~a? then i'!: Camp t a ba , 1 and Z
~ ~ ~8 -
~ ` ~ a ~ ~ *o«+r graded ands; gravelly _ .
~ ~ arndt, little or to Rnaa ~ ~ ! Not +t»atiap a4 prsda~tion raqu{ramanr. for Sw
a 5
r ~b~ ~ d ~ ~ l
~ ~ Attarbarp limits below "A"
5 SM - Slhy aanda, aand~aAt it+txtursa _ ~ r
E ~ _ _ ~ ~ II line or P.1. leer than 4 Unties pbttkq M 1. , . J
E _ cam..
$ ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ sorts with RI. L ~ 4
~ ~ ~ ~ g'a ~ er ~ and 7 era E . 1lna ea.as
s ~ • ' ~ ; M ttlQuirirtp uat of dual aym•
b Clay1? sands, aartd~day mi:• ~ ¦ ~ ~ « l1 Rntlls "11 bok.
~ turu e ~ ~ lin• with P.1. pnatar than 7
S
1 . „ ie tilts and vary ffM
aartda, rack flour, silty or day
ML ay tine sands or dayay die:
with eight plaa:iaty ~ eo 1 f f ( ! ~ .
-For dsaaMartiort of tirngwn•d ~ ~ '
tn. k days of low to ma• _ soils and tine ~ .;'c ~ of - r
9 ~ CL dium plaetidty. gravelly days. _ prainM soih. - i
' ~ € sandy days, silty days, Haan ~ . Attarbarp Limits plotting M ~ ~
r . dNs - hatched area sn borderline dealt- N
17i ~ -_fiettion: requiring uaa of dual "S`
"7`~'
' ~ OL Orpa+k silts sod . , k aiky to ~ _ liquation of A-0ne: ~ ~ ~
days of low plastidity ~ P1~0.73 tLL - 20l ~
! r ~ ~
~ Z 30 i i
i ~ ~
` In . , k rifts. mi... ~ or ~
1NH diatomaceous tine sandy or ~ - - ~ ~ OM amid MH ~ ~
silty soils. dank sibs at or i 1
Inorpank days or high a~ ~ _CL _ ~ ~ ~
g ` ~ tidty, tat a.y: 1c ~ ~ '
La OL! ~ f ~
~ OH Orgsnk says of madam !o ~ --~'-i i i
hph plestieity, orpanie sips C 10 2D ~ ~ 50 80 70 80 90 100
i.
. licnlld umh
Plaetiehy Chars '
~ ~ _ ~ ~ sod other highly orpanie
i5$
UNIFIL~O SQiL CLAB~ tFICATlON ~VQTE i1r!
o
•vi~lens s r°"p ` Typed eannr C .+..+ticstlen arttsris
waaord.dlRtt~.k.tr~~ use lOsoJ=
Gw rnixtur+ts, ifttir a no final ~ Cy G'e l~wtrr thsn ~1: Ct-Ot o~ae L ' ~ 1 aid ~
z ~ a ~ ~
GP ~OOf h ~ ~ . 1 ~ " k - ~ tvoe mratie>O sd ~rsdstion raouiranlwtts fa Gw
~
tafrc) mtaurra, pttl or no fiefs. Q'
~ r
~ ~ ~ GM ~ t:v.ls. lrswl~+d+lh ~ ~ ~ A ' Rer+ib bsbw "A'
N
£ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Jinr Or ?d. Ilat ttf/1 4 Above `A- lira with PJ.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ t, 4 itnd 7 arr Oor?
s e ~ _ s . ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ = airdtnr a.rt raqutrieeq usa
~ ~ GC Clayey tl~. ay ~ Attarbsrp Renits abort "A" d dual ~ t
- miztuew ~ Re» with P.L , then 7
r ~ ~ ,
waliyradad sands, Havally ~ ose lD~ei:
s ~ + s. ~ sands: ItttM or ra fines ~ ~ ; ; ~ Gte ~w th.n d: C~-~te~io b i ai+d 3
- 8, s.ndt. arar.lti
e 3 ands, littler
t~no fines ~ ~ ! ~ ~ ~ rroe `nR aR lradstion rspuieelnNntc 1ex S1N
y ~ ~ ~ " AttrrbrrR limits batow "A"
~ L ~ + SM '•Ohy aaeds, sneloRt Mstutss ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ Rna or P.i. lest ll+rn 4 .Units piottktq b 1 ,.had
5 ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ zone with P.i. f. 4
~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ and 7 an L . Jinn eaaea
•t taquirie+~ tna d dust sync
~ ~ Cbysy arnde, asnd~iay miet• ~ ~ ~ ~ a AL . Rmtts -A" bob.
texss _ Re» with P.1. , thsn 7
S G~,~
1.. , , ie' slits and My f ieN
_ ssnds, roc!< Hour. alty or dsy-
M~ K iMs sands or dsy.y stirs
~ with sii9Ftt pbatidty ~ ~ ' ~ ' ~ f
Inorpank days d low to ttta- -For dssifieation d terer~grsenrd
o ~ dtum plastid .bib and fin. fraetlon d ooaesa- r
Cl h. prsvsNy days. 50 _ prainad soils. r
~ E sandy drys, silty Nays. Lan - Attsrbrrp Limits piotttnp in ~
FFRRii r = d~ - berthed area sn bordsrlina dast• - ~
e ~ ~ -_fieatiom nqulritq u» d dwi r -
Z ~ Orpsnie silts snd . k stay ~ NenboFs. ~ r
Ol -EqurtioodA~lina:
days d low piastiNty ~ PI~O.T3 {LL -201 i r
~ ~ irr ~ i
s~ _
In. , k sifts. m'... n or ~ ~i w i i ~ t
MH diatomaceous fiew sandy or ~ i ~ - r tr ~ i ~ ~
_ ~ silty solo. Naetk sibs iL , ~ _ , ~ r'. OH a~ MH_t
~L 20 ~ ~ ~
~ ~ i
~ ~ ~ ' ~ i
" ' Inayrnic drys d high plee• ~ Cl _ ~ i ~ ~
deity, fat days 10 , y~y i ? ~ ~ 1 i ~
~ 4• .L~A~~ l a OL J i i i
~ OrQsnie days d medium to t
high piaetidty. orprnie sifts
0 10 20 30 10 50 80 70 80 90 100
Liquid Uenit
'Y i Pert and other highly . „ fe Ptatiehy Chort
h soils
~,~-y~
STRGAR-R4SC0E-FAUSCH, INS.
T ERS
CONSULTING ENGIh E
~TRANSI'ORTATION ¦ CIVIL ~ STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS ~ LAND SUR~'EFOR.~
File No. 0850633
MEMORANDUM
T0: Ron Erickson
Korsunsky, Krank, Erickson Architects, Inc.
FROM: Ferrol Robinson.~~L~
DATE: August 21, 1985
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FOR I-35W/I-~94 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
This memorandum summarizes the traffic analysis required for sub-~
emission of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. The proposed
development, located in the northeast quadrant of the I-35N/I-~9~
interchange, consists of the following uses:
Office 500,000 square feet of GFA
Hotel 400 rooms
The hotel contains the following facilities:
200 - seat restaurant
150 - seat cocktail lounge
.200 - seat coffee shop
600 -.person meeting rooms and banquet facilities
The proposed development is contained within a redevelopment area
that is currently being studied by the City of Richfield. To in-
sure consistency between the two studies, we met with the consult-
ant on the redevelopment proposal tBRW) and discussed general
assumptions and proposed roadway configuration for the area.
On the basis of our own analysis and of the discussion with the
above consultant, we developed direction of approach of traffic and
trips generated by the proposed site and assigned the .trips to the
proposed roadway system.
The results are shown in Figure 1 - Direction of Approach and Fig-
ure 2 - Existing and Site Traffic.
630Twelve Oaks Center, 15500 ~'Vayzata Bkd., R'ayzata MN 55391 (612) 475-0010
y~-~/J
D~
Ron Erickson - '2 - August 21, 1985
The following table shows the assumptions used to determine daily
vehicle trips to the site:
SITE TRIP GENERATION
Land Use Unit Daily Trip Rate (3) Trips
Office ~ 500 sq. ft. GFA 10.9 per 1,000 GLA 4,905
(450 sq. ft. GLA)(1)
Hotel 4-0O rooms 10.5 per room 3,7$0
.(360 occupied rooms)(2)
Total Trips . 8, 685
Correction for Multiple Trips (10~) 7,800
• C1) Assumes gross leasable area (GLA) is 90 percent of gross floor
area (450 sq. ft. GLA).
(2) Assumes a 90 percent occupancy (360 rooms).
(3) Source: ITE Trip Generation Manual
As we discussed earlier today, we will be meeting with you, City of
Richfield staff and the consultants for the City to discuss the
latest assumptions and conceptual plans for the site as well as the
redevelopment area. It may be necessary to revise the results pre-
sented here to conform with current plans.
FR/jal
Attachments
It It 1 I i '~11 II ~ ' I. , 11 '
j~ I I I " ~ ~ (1 I I I I , 11 I I I I I I I l I I I _ 11 11 ~ I
' I I I 1 1 t l 1 1 ; I 1 1 .Q ; 11 1 11 ~ I I 11 1 1 ~ 11 11 ~ 1 1 ! (1
ICI fl " ~ 11, 1 (I 11 I 11 ?i_11 11 11 ! 11 11 11 I ! .
! 1 1 1 1~ 1 1 ~ 11 ~ 1 1 1 1 11 ~ 1.1 ~ ( I
11 11 11 I I ~ n ` 1~ II ~t ~ II ~ ~ 11 ~ ~ I ( I.
1? 11 'r 11 It tl 11 a 11 11' I1 11
F II 11 I) n II 11 II ~ ~ I1. II „ I I ~ II
' I (I 11 I! ~ ~ 11 11 11 , i II II I I1 ~~T 11
1 ? ! 11 tI 11 1t .'t1 t'I 11 ' ll'j!~ 1I I i ;
11 , II II 11 I 11 IF ! t 1F II 11;;-i ll 11 I~ :I 11 ( 11, , It I 1 1
i 1 11 ~ 11 I1 11 11 11 , 11 , 11 11' 11 , I I, ' ?t ~ ~ ` ( 11
tt 1 II 1 1 11 II 11 _ I I II _ 11 11 ~ LI I1 ,
II Il I 11 II II 11 II 11':; tl , II; ? II ; 11•. II ~ l ( ' 11
[F: t 11 tl 1) 11 11 II 11, tl 11 tl I 11~; I I
' I1 I I ~ I I 11 I I I I 11 ~ ~ ~ : 1'1 a ~ I1 { I I 11
I1 ~ II I I ; ' II II II 11 !I 11 ~ II II ~ 11„ li ` ~ ~ I li II 1 III ' 17 ( I I I l tl n 11
II 11 l) . i !I II 11 ~ LI t~ ll 11 i It ( q, I I II (I ; I1 '
II 11 ~ II , 11 I) ~ I1,:1'll 1 ll, ll ~ 11,~~ II '11 11 I II I (1 (~11 11,~~1t1 IJ
r 'I ~ L1 II .I ~I I 11 ~ I1 Il ~ II it I) ~ fl • ll ~ 11!j I I) i~ , f) tl IJ I 1 ~ 1 ~ 11 11
Ill! 11 11 fl I I , 11 ! 'll,; l) ! 1 ~ ~ ( 1l
' II ~ ~ I 111 ' I. II 11 ~ t I1 j I I 11I f) ~ ~ ~ 11 ~
~ ~ ~ ~ vllo,tt 16tH stroll I ; ~1..
y~~ ~ IResldenll I Collector! r•-- r-•
II I I 1 1 fl I~ 11 ; I I ,rill
11 I I I I I ' ! ` 1 1 11 t l ! I 1 I I t l 11
' II I I I I 1111 . II II I I I I
li it II II I) II II I II i 11 ~ i 11 ;t1 11 ~ tl It ri f I
I~
~I II II II" II (t fl I II 11 >li 11 ~ 11 tl 11 ~ +t tl f
,~~Il~.. ! 1I I1 I ~I' ~ i I1 11 I ll '!11 t1 lI ! I
I 1t II II 11 ll II I1 II ~ `
\ II. I ~~"1.. r ? I~ '11 I II'I'
I It ~ 11 11 II I) !I II O , ~II I I ~ 1 I
\ II J ~ II ~ t! '1 i t'~ ! n I 11 'I 11 I i1 11 (1 ~ Ia
` \ ' I Mo or ' ~~den 11~ p~_..ill::,~~~ ~ ..L l.. s ~ -..~Nde~l 1~• ..1~..~.~~~..~,}~~~~.
~ j) New I ~ .I 1 • ~ ~a
~ ! ( Dblrlcl I West 77th Slreelj IBuslness At1,~r a1~ ~ (j'I 1 t ~ I ~ ~ ~ 'I '
~ ~ 1 / I11.. I; ! I.I.L._ l;i ~ ~ 1_t t ~
I W q ~ 4 { I
• I I 1 1 i ! ~ ! I ( 1 4 'C 11`x„ t~ ' ~ ( { 1
` ~ I { 1: r
~ M1xeN Coln µerclal Olstrlct• /~L'_•••' ~ ~
~ ,~c.'•' N(Ixed omm c~el Olslrkt {
I I( I I I I I I I I I I 1 l ! I I ( I
~
~ ~ ~ ~ 1-494 ~~`r..~
~ ~
~ 35v~t~ 4 ire ~ vE~ err';
I
4. 1- v 1REGT~or~ o1r A~nAcH
S l :11 - ~,I 111~:1111,~1,1 r~nl?!11,!~at,,,
II II I I I i ~I I it ~ ~ I II ~ ~
Ij ~I ~ I II 11 I! ~ II I1 11 II II II 11 j~ ~ , 11
I II I I I I I I I I I C' II II 11 II II II
, , , , II
,I II II II, II 4~II 1 II II II ~ 1 It II II +I)
I~ Il I~ tl II II ~ I II 'll 11 ~ ' II I.1 I I ~ III
~I II tl ~ II 11 , I I~ ill I II I II ~ it I ~ i I I I)
II II II II II II' ~I ` 11 II' II
I I I I I I I I I I 11 II II ~ II l I 11
II ~ 11 II I i, I I II II i ; I II ~ I) ;I II
I I I I I I I 'i , 11 11 I( 11 I I I I I. 1 1 I I l l i
1 1 i I I ~VO I ~ '
II I II 11 I I I I I II 1 I tl II Il;j~ (l 11 .I I) I I I, ~ II ~f 1 1
(I I I I ~ II I I II II II II ~ II , ~ II I~' it II. ~ II I I . i I i
I II 1I II II II 11 11 If 11 II ~ 1100 II
II , II ~ II II I I I I II II I I II II , II ~ (l ; I.I., II I I I I1
1 It II II 11 I) II II II II II II II i II I ~ ( I I
II I! 11 ll II II II 11 ~ II a (1 ~y, II 1 l I I I F II
I I I f l I I II II Ili I I ~I i t I II I I ~ I t„ 11 r ~ I II
I I I i 11 ~
II II n
it 11 I I I I I I 11 ~ I II I I I l j I I ,'I E ~ ~ l l I I II I ~ ' I1
I r l I 1 r ~ , I 1 1. I' ~ (I 4 t l I I I f 1 l l 1 1 11 11
IV , Ii 1 I t I) ~ 11 I
I ~'~SVt'17VV II I I LI ; 11;; II ~ I I I II i IJ I' 1 I ~ i ~t 1 I1 .
ll II ~I , II I1 ~II II 'll,~ I) I{(I ~ II '/t"~~~ ~
~\:_.,-.•~„_..~.t...,~ ~ ~ I I I ~ ~ I I t l I~ it I IWe~I II 7~Ih IShj~t' I l i Il~..._ ~ I~ I i t I (I ~ f l III 14"',°
IRaeldenll 1 Colleclorl
~r ' I I, I ~ I i I I I'll I I I I I I I
•I ~ I I I I I I I I I I i 1 I I~ , I I i I I , ~ , I I l
' ~ I I I I I I I I I I. I I I II I I I I I I I ~ I I I 11 1 1 1 " I I I I
1 I 1, ~ I + I I 11 1 1 1 1
- ~ I I I I I I I I i I I 11 , i I I 1 1 1, 1, 1 1 L~ 3 I 11 I I' ~ ~ 11 I I 1
1 j l l \~i~.L I I I I I I I I I I I I , I I I I i I I ~ ~ I I + I
i I
1111 { \~1"? I I I I ' ~ I~IF?I ~~Ij1~ I) I I I ~ I. (I ' ~I ( I 1 I I I n I~O~\ ~~r~
~ I I~ i iY "TI'S I I I (I ~ ~ i I
S i ~ I ~ ~ I i + I1 'tI ~I1
~ ~ I 1 ~ I I' I I 1 I ~ I I I ~ t~ n'
i_ I I ~ I i 1 1 -
I ( ~.f~~slden I !ij II--L°oPI~ 'F _8oadl~ I 11 I I ~~p~eWrrnl 11~ Loop
Me or "^-x.11 ~-"`~r~~~~...~.~.,.,3 ~..s ~ ~ I I h~_.:.U~...~~,7~--C~.,._._~~~ .
Now ~ ~ 1.~
Development ~~1~/~~ ~ ~ ~
1 Dislrlcl ~ I Weal 771h Slreell IEiuelneee
Arte~r
elf I I t .~.1 I T i _ 'I l ~
I ~ W i, I.. I ; , ; I .I L..I i~ h ~ , ~ ' l I ~ ~
` I I III l 'III I ~ a ~ ~ i I 1 1
h I
~ I I I I 1: ~-j~ ~Z,~ r- _ ro ~~V pflxed t~omm csl District I
t-t Mlxofl Cd~r.hnerclnl Dlslrlcl I I o c~ '
~ I I i t I I ~ I I ~ I.
} ? (-494 ~
i ,
35v~! ~'g~" PKo~'45~~D~1r•EL£~'MbtJT" r'I. ~.I. „
1
a 1
~?G.2- ~xis-rIN~ ~Nfl Sr~T~aF~lc CA~'~ 40o site arc' ~
(g a o ~ E Xt-yt', n of PHUT"
I 'Ily ~'I II1, 111~,'I~I w111~11i1~~(IIa
.tom
O` "
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
• Office of City Manager/HRA Executive Director
Council Letter Nc. 310
HRA Letter No. 45
Agenda August 26, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
Members cf the City Council
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Request by the Woodlake Paint Developer to reduce
the $25,000 Letter of Credit by 50% Retained by
the HRA.
Council Members and Commissioners:
The Contract for the Sale of Land for Private Development
was executed May 14, 1984, between the HRA and the Woodlake Point
developer. The contract requires the Woodlake Point developer
• to provide a $25,000 Letter of Credit to the HRA far the
prcje%t.
As of the date of closing, December 27, 1984, a Letter of
Credit was provided (see attached Letter of Credit). The Letter
of Credit holds the Developer liable to the HRA for liquidated
money damages up to $25,000 on the Woodlake Point Condominium
project, Housing Component A.
Section 4.10 of the Contract also states;
"The Letter of Credit shall be retained by the HRA until the
construction of the principal building on such: portion of
the property is thirty percent (30%) complete as certified
by the Developer's architect; at which point the letter cf
credit amount applicable to that component may be reduced by
fifty percent (50~) and shall be fully released when the
building is one hundred percent (100%) complete as certified
by Developer's architect."
Attached is a communication from Richard Krier, Vice
President of Derrick Companies, reporting that 30~ or more of
the Woodlake Point Condominium project has been certified by the
architect as being complete. The letter from Gary Tushie, with
the architectural firm of Tushie-Montgomery Associates, Inc.,
certifying the project as 3b~o complete, is also attached.
•
-2-
Staff has also contacted Phillip Olson, the Project Manager,
• to verify the percent of completion based on a cost stand
point. Mr. Olson indicated that as of August 1, 1985, the
project was ~t7~ complete from a cost standpoint.
Inasmuch as the HRA is a party to the contract with the Wood
Lake Point developer, it is appropriate for the HRA to act upon
this request. The information has also been presented to the
city council for information, but requires no council action at
this time.
It is recommended that the HRA authorize the Developer to
submit a new Letter of Credit in the amount of $12,500 for the
Woodlake Point project (Housing Component A).
Respectfully submitted,
G~ i/ .
Steven Dev' c~r"~'Y'~'"~
Acting Executive Director
Acting City Manager
SD/eja
•
•
~ ~
fit. , ,
~ .
The Demck Companies 1650 Shelard Tower • Minneapolis, MN 55426 • 612/546-2276
26 Julq 1985 ,
Mr. John Cartwright, Executive Director
CITY OF RICHFIELD HOUSING AND
REDGVr,LOPMENT AUTHORITY
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
Siib~ect: Woodlake Point
Dear John:.
As per the Rededelo-pment Agreement, SOr of the construction
Letter of Credit may be released when thirty percent (30~) of the - -
' building is certified completed by the architect. Attached is a
letter. from the architect certifying same.
Please authorize a releasa of the $25,000 Woodlake Point Letter
of Credit which we will then replace with a $12,500 Letter of
Credit.
Should you have any questions, please call.
Sincerely,
l~ ,
~ C~~
Richard C. Brier, AICP
Yice President
Derrick Companies
RCR:clb
enclosure
cc: Steve Yurick
John Dean
I
f ~ t~_ /
r ~ ~ I'C L.cr ~.•s ~i.i .~'is ! z ~ ~~8~
Tushie~MontgomQry & Associates, lnc.
Juiy 24, 1985
Mr. Richard Krier
Derrick Land Company
1650 Shelard Tower
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426:
Re: Woodiake Point Condominiums
Dear Dick:
At your request TUSNIE-MONTGOMERY ASSOCIATES, INC.. is notifying .you that the
construction of Woodlake Point Condominiums, as of the last certified request
for payment;. is now 35~ complete..
If you have any further questions regarding this issue,. please contact our
off ice.
Sincerely,
TUSHIE-MONTGOMERY ASSOCIATES, INC.
Gary Tushie
President .
cc: Sieve Y;:rick
~ ~ ~ ~
~
vGL`j r?y±r:g Clcud ?~iV¢ ~/',~lnn2^~plf$•~,tinnQS~'~o~55v4µoblLa~d ^ai~G%~
~
i
• e
i+~M/~~ "~'~V / • AN INOEPENOENT BANK
66\25 Lyndale Avenue So. Richfield, Minnesota 55423 /Telephone: 861-7355
December 27, 1984
Housing and Redevelopment Authority
of the City of. Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue South
Richfield, Minnesota 55423
ATTV: John Cartwright
RE: Our Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit r;o. 305
Amount: $25,000.00 '~^U.S. Funds
Gentlemen:
tJe hereby establish our Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit i`305 and
authorize you to value on us at si~'rtt the sum not to eYCeed $25,000.00
for the account of Market plaza Corp. (concerning the development of a
Condominium component in the Lyndale-Hub-Nicollet project area described
herein).
• For I00% value of beneficiary's signed statement (signature verified by
financial institution) as follows:
"Marker Plaza Corp., has defaulted on that certain 'contract for
the sale of land for private development,' dated `?av 14, I984
by and between the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of the
City of Richfield and Market Plaza Corp. as per Article III,
Section 3.3 or Article IV, Section 4.10 thereof."
DRAFTS DRA[J~1 UNDER THIS LETTER OF CREDIT '~T[JST BE CLAUSF.D "DRAT"; UNDER
RICHFIELD BA:~;~ & TRUST C0.'s LETTER OF CREDIT :',`305 DATED DECE`~BER 27,
1984."
tJE HEREBY AGREE !JITH DRAGIERS , ENDORSERS , Ai1D BOi~:A FIDE HOLDERS OF DRAFTS
DRAtJ*I U:v'DER A;'1D I'1 CO~ipLIANCE WITH THE TER'~?S OF THIS LETTER OF CREDIT
THAT THE SA.'°1E SHALL BE DULY HO~iORED UPON PRESI'.dTATION AT THIS ??A_~tK IF
DR.~,[v~1 AND NEGOTIATED 0:1 OR BEFORE i~r'1RCH 27, 1987.
E.'{CEPT AS OTHER:~ISE EXPRESSLY STATED, THIS LETTER OF CREDIT IS SUBJECT
TO THE LT'~tIFORM CL'STOZiS A~\'D P~
ACTICE FOR DOCIJ~fE~ITED CREDITS , I~ITFR.~IATIO"_'AL
CHA.`~ER OF COi~'?1ERCE, DUBLICATION -6290, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 1984.
RICHFIELD BaNTK & TRUST CO.
n A. Wittek
sistant Vice President
or:,mercial Loan Department
~
• CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager/HRA Executive Director
Council Letter No. 309
HRA Letter No. 44
Agenda August 26, 1985
The Honorable Mayor
Members of the City Council
Housing and Redevelopment
Authority Commissioners
City of Richfield
Subject: Amendments to the Market Plaza Corporation
Developers Agreements
Council Members and Commissioners:
On May 14, 1934, the City of Richfield (City) and the
Housing and Redevelopment Authority (HRA) entered into a
contract for the Sale of band for Private Development with
Market Plaza Corporation (Developer), Arkell Development
• Corporation (Co-developer) and E.J. Plesko Association Inc.
(Cc-developer).
The City and the HRA are being asked to consider several
amendments to the Developer's Agreement, Assessment Agreement,
and Agreement to Pay Deficiencies. The new language separates
the obligations of the developers of the Shopping Center
Component from the Apartment Component. With these revisions,
each project will be freestanding and pay their own deficiencies
without the support of the other.
At the July 22nd meeting, the City Council also approved the
modifications to Exhibit H of the developers agreement. T'r.e
icems to be reflected in the revised Exhibit H are:
-a reconfiguration of the building on the east end;
-an increase in the gross floor area from 316,400 square
feet to 322,559 square feet;
-the building has been pivoted southward slightly;
-an addition of a maintenance building on the west side of
the structure;
-a reconfiguration of commercial spaces and a reduction in
the mall width;
-a reconfiguration in the apartment guest parking area and
in the commercial parking area adjacent to Wendys; and,
-a revision in the exterior facade materials.
n
-2-
• A revised Exhibit H will be presented on Monday evening.
It will reflect all of the modifications identified above..
This will be a part of the amendments made to the developers
agreement.
The language in the Developers Agreement will also be
revised to reflect the off-street loading and unloading area for
the Market Plaza housing, component. The City will be given the
right to order the developer to construct off-street parking at
the Developer's expense if it is found by the City to be
necessary. The City Council recommended this amendment at the
July 22, 1985, public hearing.
The documents are being prepared by the Developer's legal
counsel and were not available at the time this letter was
written. However, they will be distributed prior to the Monday
evening meeting.
It is recommended that the City Council and the HRA
authorize the recommended amendments to the Developer's
Agreement. This action must occur prier to the closing on the
Housing Revenue Bonds.
Respectfully submitted,
•
teven h. v'ch
Acting City Manager
Acting HRA Executive Director
SD/eja
•
~1
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
•
Council Letter No. 308
Agenda Au ust 26 1 85
g ~ 9
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
City of Richfield
Subject: Presentation of City Infrastructure Document
Council Members:
A 6:00 p.m. meeting has been scheduled for August 26, 1985,
recedin the 6: 0 .m. interviews for the
P g 3 P Human Rights
Commission appointments, and the 7:00 p.m. regular council
meeting. The purpose of the 6:00 p.m. meeting is to distribute
and explain the Infrastructure Document to council members.
Infrastructure pertains to the physical assets of the
community such as its buildings, streets, underground services
such as water and sewer, and trees. The Community Services
• Department staff has spent approximately a year and one-half
amassing information related to the city's infrastructure. The
document is written in lay language to alert the community,
staff, appointed officials and elected officials to items that
need to be addressed in the long-range improvement program and
serves as a tool for evaluating proposals for development.
The document should also be helpful in planning maintenance and
development strategies, enabling the city to avoid "unforeseen
difficulties".
Donald Fcndrick, Director of Community Services, will be
available at the 6:00 p.m. meeting to explain the usage of the
document. The Infrastructure Document should prove to be a
valuable asset to the city.
Respectfully submitted,
Gov
Steven L`:_ ev ch
Acting City Manager
SLD/eja
•
II!