IP #713GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
ADULT DAYCARE CENTER
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
L. W. SAMUELSON CONSTRUCTION, INC.
GME PROJECT NO. 3924
Copyright, 1993 - GME Consultants, Inc.
GME CONSULTANTS. INC
GME CONSULTANTS INC.
U
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
14000 21 st Ave. No./ Minneapolis, IVIN 55447
Phone (612) 559-1859 / Fax (612) 559-0720
March 26, 1993
L. W. Samuelson Construction, Inc.
7800 East River Road
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55432 GME Project No. 3924
Attention: Mr. L. W. Samuelson
RE: Geotechnical exploration for the proposed Adult Daycare center in
New Hope, Minnesota
Dear Mr. Samuelson:
Following your acceptance of our proposal dated January 12, 1993, we
have completed the geotechnical exploration for this project. Enclosed
please find the results of our exploration, and recommendations for
foundation design and earthwork construction for this project. We are
submitting four copies of this report to you, and one copy to Mr.
Bernie Stroh, P.E. of Stroh Engineering. Submittal of this report
concludes this portion of the scope of services outlined in our
proposal.
We appreciate the opportunity to have been of service on this project.
If you have questions concerning our report, or if we may be of
additional service, please contact me at 559-1859.
Sincerely,
7 GME NSULTANTS, INC.
Gregory R. Reuter, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
GRR: cmp
WILLIAM C. KWASNY, P.E. THOMAS PAUL VENEMA, P.E. WILLIAM E. BLOEMENDAL, P.E.
GREGORY R. REUTER, P.E. WYATT A. GUTZKE, P.E. MERVYN MINDESS, P.E.
MARK D. MILLSOP SANDRA J. FORREST STEVEN J. RUESINK, P.E.
An Equal Opportunity Employer
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION
ADULT DAYCARE CENTER
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA
L. W. SAMUELSON CONSTRUCTION, INC.
GME PROJECT NO. 3924
Section Pac7e
ASFE Notes Regarding Geotechnical Engineering Reports
Introduction
1
Project Description
1
Scope of Services
1
Site Description
2
Field Exploration
3
Laboratory Testing
4
Subsurface Conditions
5
Soil Conditions
6
Groundwater Measurements
6
Engineering Review and Recommendations
7
Discussion
7
Foundation Design
8
Pavement Design
9
Construction Considerations
10
Winter Construction
10
Construction Safety
11
General Qualifications
11
Standard of Care
13
Appendix
RMC rnium at TAmTQ me
IMPOKFANT INFORMA11ON
ABOUTYOUR
RE
More construction problems are caused by site subsurface
conditions than any other factor As troublesome as sub-
surface problems can be, their frequency and extent have
been lessened considerably in recent years, thanks to the
Association of Soil and Foundation Engineers (ASFE).
When ASFE was founded in 1969, subsurface problems
were frequently being resolved through lawsuits. In fact,
the situation had grown to such alarming proportions that
consulting geotechnical engineers had the worst profes-
sional liability record of all design professionals. By 1980,
ASFE - member consulting soil and foundation engineers had the best
professional liability record. This dramatic turn -about can be
attributed directly to client acceptance of problem - solving
programs and materials developed by ASFE for its mem-
bers' application. This acceptance was gained because clients
perceived the ASFE approach to be in their own best interests.
Disputes benefit only those who earn their living from
others' disagreements.
The following suggestions and observations are offered to
help you reduce the geotechnical- related delays, cost -over-
runs and other costly headaches that can occur during a
construction project.
MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" ARE
PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions
only at those points where samples are taken, when they
are taken. Data derived through sampling and subsequent
laboratory testing are extrapolated by the geotechnical
engineer who then renders an opinion about overall sub-
surface conditions, their likely reaction to proposed con-
struction activity, and appropriate foundation design. Even
under optimal circumstances actual conditions may differ
from those opined to exist, because no geotechnical en-
gineer, no matter how qualified, and no subsurface explo-
ration program, no matter how comprehensive, can reveal
what is hidden by earth, rock and time. For example, the
actual interface between materials may be far more
gradual or abrupt than the report indicates, and actual
conditions in areas not sampled may differ from predic-
tions. Nothing can be done to prevent the unanticipated, but steps can
be taken to help minimize their impact. For this reason, most
experienced owners retain their geotechnical consultant through the
construction stage, to identify variances, conduct additional
tests which may be needed, and to recommend solutions
to problems encountered on site.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS BASED ON A UNIQUE SET OF
PROJECT - SPECIFIC FACTORS
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS CAN
CHANGE
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsurface
exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique set of
project- specific factors. These typically include: the general
nature of the structure involved, its size and configuration:
the location of the structure on the site and its orientation;
physical concomitants such as access roads, parking lots,
and underground utilities, and the level of additional risk
which the client assumed by virtue of limitations imposed
upon the exploratory program. To help avoid costly prob-
lems, consult the geotechnical engineer to determine how
any factors which change subsequent to the date of his
report may affect his recommendations.
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates
otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not be used:
• When the nature of the proposed structure is
changed, for example, if an office building will be
erected instead of a parking garage, or if a refriger-
ated warehouse will be built instead of an unrefrig-
erated one;
• when the size or configuration of the proposed
structure is altered;
• when the location or orientation of the proposed
structure is modified;
• when there is a change of ownership, or
• for application to an adjacent site.
A geotechnical engineer cannot accept responsibility for problems which
may develop if he is not consulted after factors considered in his reports
development have changed.
Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly -
changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engineer-
ing report is based on conditions which existed at the time
of subsurface exploration, construction decisions should not be
based on a geotechnical engineering report whose adequacy may have
been affected by time. Speak with the geotechnical consultant
to learn if additional tests are advisable before construc-
tion starts.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and
natural events such as floods, earthquakes or groundwater
fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions and,
thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical report.
The geotechnical engineer should be kept apprised of any
such events, and should be consulted to determine if
additional tests are necessary.
A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS SUBJECT TO
MISINTERPRETATION
Costly problems can occur when other design profession-
als develop their plans based on misinterpretations of a
geotechnical engineering report. To help avoid these prob-
lems, the geotechnical engineer should be retained to work
with other appropriate design professionals to explain
relevant geotechnical findings and to review the adequacy
of their plans and specifications relative to geotechnical
issues.
BORING LOGS SHOULD NOT BE
SEPARATED FROM THE ENGINEERING
REPORT
Final boring logs are developed by the geotechnical en-
gineer based upon his interpretation of field logs (assem-
bled by site personnel) and laboratory evaluation of field
samples. Only final boring logs customarily are included in
geotechnical engineering reports. These logs should not under
any circumstances be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or
other design drawings, because drafters may commit errors
or omissions in the transfer process. Although photo-
graphic reproduction eliminates this problem, it does
nothing to minimize the possibility of contractors misin-
terpretating the logs during bid preparation. When this
occurs, delays, disputes and unanticipated costs are the
all- too-frequent result.
To minimize the likelihood of boring log misinterpretation,
give contractors ready access to.the complete geotechnical engineering
report. Those who do not provide such access may proceed
under the mistaken impression that simply disclaiming
responsibility for the accuracy of subsurface information
always insulates them from attendant liability. Providing
the best available information to contractors helps prevent
costly construction problems and the adversarial attitudes
which aggravate them to disproportionate scale.
READ RESPONSIBILITY CLAUSES
CLOSELY
Because geotechnical engineering is based extensively on
judgement and opinion, it is far less exact than other
design disciplines. This situation has resulted in wholly
unwarranted claims being lodged against geotechnical
consultants. To help prevent this problem, geotechnical
engineers have developed model clauses for use in written
transmittals. These are not exculpatory clauses designed to
foist the geotechnical engineer's liabilities onto someone
else. Rather, they are definitive clauses which identify
where the geotechnical engineer's responsibilities begin
and end. Their use helps all parties involved recognize their
individual responsibilities and take appropriate action.
Some of these definitive clauses are likely to appear in your
geotechnical engineering report, and you are encouraged
to read them closely Your geotechnical engineer will be
pleased to give full and frank answers to your questions.
OTHER STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO
REDUCE RISK
Your consulting geotechnical engineer will be pleased to
discuss other techniques which can be employed to miti-
gate risk. In addition, the Association of Soil and Founda-
tion Engineers has developed a variety of materials which
may be beneficial. Contact ASFE for a complimentary copy
of its publications directory.
Published by
N1 UOoo 0.
INTRODUCTION
You have requested that we perform a geotechnical exploration for this
project. Authorization to perform this work was your acceptance of our
proposal dated January 12, 1993, by the City of New Hope. The
following report presents the results of our field exploration and our
foundation recommendations for this project.
Project Data
The proposed building will initially be a single story structure with
• footprint of about 30,000 square feet. Provisions will be made for
• future second story addition. The building will be constructed with
pre-cast concrete elements, with masonry brick veneer. Finished floor
elevation will be +899.0 feet. We anticipate that the maximum column
loads, allowing for the future expansion, will be on the order of 200
kips, wall loads on the order of 3.5 to 4.5 kips per lineal foot, and
floor slab live loads less than 100 pounds per square foot.
A 140-car parking lot will be constructed north of the building. A
truck drive lane will also be constructed around the structure. You
anticipate 16 daily passes of mini-busses.
scope of services
Our scope of services for this project, as outlined in our proposal, is
limited to the following elements:
1. Drill four test borings, each to a depth of 70
feet. Collect representative soil samples in
accordance with the split barrel method.
ramr. rmunin TaiuTot mr-
Mr. L. W. Samuelson
GME Project No. 3924 2 March 26, 1993
2. Return portions of recovered soil samples to our
laboratory for final examination, classification,
and preparation of the boring logs.
3. Prepare a geotechnical engineering report
describing the subsurface conditions encountered,
and presenting our foundation recommendations.
The purpose of this report is to describe the subsurface conditions
encountered in our borings, and to present our preliminary foundation
recommendations for the proposed daycare center.
Prior to our exploration, borings were performed at this site by
others. A copy of the boring logs was made available to us for review.
Where applicable, the results of the previous borings were utilized in
the formulation of our recommendations.
SITE DESCRIPTION
The project site is located on the west side of Boone Avenue North,
south of the intersection with Research Center Road East in New Hope,
Minnesota. At the time of our exploration, the site was a vacant
parcel of land. Numerous fill piles were observed on the property.
The majority of the site was snow covered; however, we observed
cattails extending through the snow at some locations.
Published maps by the Minnesota Geological Survey indicate that the
surficial soils at this site are post - glacial, organic, swamp deposited
Z
peat and organic silt. These soils are in turn underlain by sandy clay
amm rnivam TaewTa me
Mr. L. W. Samuelson
GME Project No. 3924 3 March 26, 1993
glacial till related to the Des Moines Ice Lobe of the Wisconsinan
Glacial Epoch. The till overlies glacial outwash sands. Silty sand
glacial till of the Superior Ice Lobe can be found beneath the outwash
sand. The site appears to overlie a minor bedrock valley. The
uppermost bedrock surface is believed to be St. Peter Sandstone,
occurring at a depth of about 150 to 200 feet.
FIELD EXPLORATION
Between March 12 and 16, 1993, we drilled four borings for this
project, near the four corners of the building. A soil boring location
diagram is appended. We determined the number of borings, boring
locations, and boring depths based on our understanding of the project
and our knowledge of the general geology of the area. Each boring was
originally intended to be drilled to a depth of 70 feet below existing
grade. Of the four borings, two were drilled to 70 feet, the remaining
two were drilled to depths of 76 and 81 feet, in order for us to obtain
sufficient information for piling recommendations. Our crew located
the borings on site by taping from existing structures, using
dimensions scaled from the site plan you provided to us. We also
determined the ground surface elevation at each boring location, using
the top nut of the fire hydrant located at 5430 Boone Avenue North, as
our benchmark. This benchmark is at elevation +896.74 feet NGVD
(National Geodetic Vertical Datum), as determined by the City of New
Hope.
#--Mr. en1Ua2#1 remTa Ime
Mr. L. W. Samuelson
GME Project No. 3924 4 March 26, 1993
The borings were drilled with a CME 550 drill rig, using hollow stem
augers and wash drilling techniques to advance the boreholes. Soil
samples were obtained by the split barrel method in accordance with
ASTM: D 1586. The Standard Penetration Values (N- values, blows per
foot) recorded in the sampling procedure are shown on the respective
logs. The N- values are used as an indication of the in -place density
of cohesionless soils, and to a more approximate degree, the
consistency of cohesive or semi- cohesive soils. Recovered samples were
preliminarily classified in the field by the drill crew, sealed in jars
to reduce moisture loss, and returned to our laboratory for examination
and classification by a Geotechnical Engineer.
The drill crew observed the borings for groundwater levels during and
after completion of the drilling. These water level readings are shown
in the lower left corner of the respective boring logs. The remaining
boreholes were backfilled with cuttings upon completion of the
drilling.
LABORATORY TESTING
The soil classification program was initiated by a Geotechnical
Engineer examining each of the samples to determine the major and minor
soil components, while also noting the color, degree of saturation, and
lenses or seams found in the samples. The Engineer visually /manually
classified the samples on the basis of texture and plasticity in
CME CONSULTANTS_ INC
Mr. L. W. Samuelson
GME Project No. 3924 5 March 26, 1993
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. The letter
symbols in parentheses following the written description on the boring
logs are the estimated group symbols based on this system. A chart
describing the Unified System is included in the Appendix.
The Engineer grouped the soils by type into the strata shown on the
boring logs. The stratification lines shown on the logs are
approximate; insitu, the transition between soil types may be gradual
or abrupt in both the horizontal and vertical directions.
We will retain the soil samples from this program for 30 days. If you
wish to have the samples retained beyond this time, we ask that you
please advise us; otherwise, the samples will be discarded.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The subsurface conditions encountered at each boring location are
described on the logs included in the report Appendix. We wish to
point out that subsurface conditions at other times and locations on
the site may differ from those found at our boring locations. If
different conditions are encountered during construction, it is
necessary that you contact us so that our recommendations can be
reviewed.
r_"C rnvmu rew*e me
Mr. L. W. Samuelson
GME Project No. 3924 6 March 26, 1993
Soil Conditions
In each boring we found fill extending to depths of 9 to 14 feet,
corresponding approximately to elevations +879 to +888 feet. The fill
consisted of a non - uniform mixture of sand, clay, and organic soils.
N- values within the fill ranged from 5 to 26 bpf. Below the fill, we
found a 10 to 20 foot thick layer of swamp deposited compressible
organic soils consisting of soft peat and organic silt. These soils
were found to depths of 19 to 34 feet (approximate elevations +862 to
+878 feet). N- values in the organic soils ranged from 1 to 4 bpf.
Below the organic soils, we encountered naturally- occurring non - organic
sandy clay glacial till to depths of 49 to 59 feet (elevations +834 to
+848 feet) . The upper few feet of the sandy clay was soft to very
soft; however, the major lower portion was stiff to very stiff. N-
values ranged from 0 to 22 bpf. Below the sandy clay till, we
encountered medium dense to dense outwash sands overlying silty sand
glacial till to the boring completion depths. N- values within the sand
ranged from 20 to 51 bpf.
Groundwater Measurements
Free groundwater was encountered in our borings at depths ranging from
1 to 14 feet while drilling, corresponding to elevations +882.8 to
+894.4 feet. The variability of the groundwater levels in the borings
clue enwemreare ime
Mr. L. W. Samuelson
GME Project No. 3924 7 March 26, 1993
suggest that a perched groundwater condition may exist at this site.
It is important to note that groundwater levels on this site will not
remain static, and will not remain static, and will fluctuate with
variations in precipitation, runoff, land usage, and other factors.
ENGINEERING REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
The engineering recommendations made in this report are based on our
understanding of the project as described in this report. The
recommendations are valid for a specific set of project conditions. If
the characteristics of the project change from those indicated in this
section, it is necessary that we be notified so that we may determine
whether new conditions affect our recommendations.
Discussion
Our engineering recommendations are intended to limit total and
differential settlement of the completed structure to less than I and
1/2 inch respectively. Due to the presence of the uncontrolled fill
and buried organic soils, we recommend that the structure be supported
on a deep foundation system. The buried organic soils extend too deep
to permit economical excavation and replacement with controlled fill.
Our specific foundation recommendations are presented in the following
sections.
CM19 CMIUR"I ININTR Mir
Mr. L. W. Samuelson
GME Project No. 3924 8 March 26, 1993
Foundation Desig
The depth of fill and organic soils at the proposed building location
is 19 to 34 feet, and it is our opinion that timber piling would not be
economically feasible for foundation support. We recommend the use of
12-3/4 inch outside diameter steel pipe piles. The pipe should have a
minimum wall thickness of 0.250 inches and should be driven closed
ended with a flat plate welded to the toe of the pipe, having an
outside diameter equal to or less than 12-3/4 inches. In our opinion,
these piles driven to bear within the medium dense to dense outwash
sand or sandy glacial till at an approximate depth of 65 feet
(approximate tip elevation +830 to +833 feet) , could be designed for an
allowable load of 70 tons per pile. Due to continued long-term
compression of the organic soils, we recommend allowing 30 tons per
pile for negative skin friction or downdrag loading, which would result
in 40 tons per pile for structural support. The piles should be driven
with an air or diesel hammer having a manufacturers rated energy of
25,000 to 35,000 foot-pounds. Upon completion of the driving, the
piles should be observed by lowering an electric light into them. All
structurally sound piles should be filled with concrete having a
minimum 28 day compressive strength of 3,000 psi.
The pile length presented in this report is an estimate, and must be
confirmed in the field by an appropriate test pile program. We
recommend that at least four test piles be driven and monitored with a
Pile Driving Analyzer (PDA). The testing should be performed by an
rmr. mrAninTapAva mr!
Mr. L. W. Samuelson
GME Project No. 3924 9 March 26, 1993
experienced Geotechnical Engineer in accordance with ASTM: D 4945
procedures. We also recommend that an experienced Geotechnical
Engineer or Engineering Technician be present to observe the
installation of all remaining production piles on this project, to
document that each pile was driven to the proper installation criterion
developed during the test pile program.
We recommend that the interior floor slab be a structural slab,
supported on piles and grade beams. The exterior pile caps should be
based at least 4 feet below final exterior grade for frost protection.
You should anticipate that utilities entering the structure will
experience differential settlement; therefore, the utility lines should
be fitted with flexible connections, and the entry points into the
building should be through over -sized sleeved holes in the grade beams.
Pavement Design
We understand that in the parking lot and drive lanes, you plan to
subcut the existing fill material to a depth of 3 feet. You plan to
place a geotextile over the subgrade soils and backfill with sand to
final pavement subgrade elevation. We recommend that the geotextile
conform to Mn /DOT 3733 Type V requirements. The sand fill should be
placed in loose lifts, not exceeding 10 inches in thickness. Each lift
should be compacted to at least 95% of the maximum Modified Proctor dry
density, ASTM: D 1557.
GME CDNSIIt. TANTA. IMC
Mr. L. W. Samuelson
GME Project No. 3924 10 March 26, 1993
In the truck drive areas, we recommended that the pavement section
consist of 1 -1/2 inches of Mn /DOT 2341 surface course over 2 inches of
Mn /DOT 2331 base course. The asphalt should overlie at least 8 inches
of Mn /DOT Class 5 crushed stone base course. In the parking lot, we
recommend a minimum asphalt thickness of 3 inches, consisting of 1 -1/2
inches of Mn /DOT 2341 surface course over 1 -1/2 inches of Mn /DOT 2331
base course. The asphalt should overlie at least 6 inches of Mn /DOT
Class 5 crushed stone base course.
It is important to note that the pavement recommendations are intended
for a design life of 15 years; however, you should implement a regular
maintenance program in order to realize the overall life of the
pavement structure. The maintenance program should include periodic
seal coating and immediate repair of distressed pavement areas. Since
the pavement will be constructed over the existing fill and peat, you
should expect some long term differential settlement which may cause
water ponding and cracking of the pavement surface and curbs.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
Winter Construction
If winter construction is contemplated, special precautions should be
followed by the contractors. If excavation starts after frost has
penetrated the soil, ripping may be required, which may result in
r_uc rnomu reu*e IMP
Mr. L. W. Samuelson
GME Project No. 3924 11 March 26, 1993
additional earthwork charges. Only unfrozen backfill should be used,
and contractors may charge extra for importing unfrozen soil or keeping
backfill from freezing. Placement of fill and /or foundation concrete
must not be permitted on frozen soil, nor should the bearing soils
under footings or slabs be allowed to freeze after concrete is placed,
because excess post- construction settlement could occur as the frozen
soils thaw.
Construction Safety
All excavations must comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part
1926, Subpart P "Excavations and Trenches ". This document states that
excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. Reference
to the OSHA requirement should be included in the job specifications.
The responsibility to provide safe working conditions on this site, for
pile driving, earthwork, and building construction, is solely that of
the contractors. This responsibility is not borne in any manner by GME
Consultants, Inc.
GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS
This report has been prepared based on the soil and groundwater
conditions found in our borings, and on the development data related to
us by L. W. Samuelson Construction. This report is intended solely for
this project at the specific location discussed. If there are any
r_ue enumutwWTC ion
Mr. L. W. Samuelson
GME Project No. 3924 12 March 26, 1993
changes in size, scope, elevations, structural loads, use or nature of
the structure from those outlined in this report, or if our
understanding of the project is incomplete or incorrect, we ask that we
be notified in order that we may review our recommendations to
determine if they are applicable.
The soil and groundwater conditions for this project were determined at
four locations. These conditions are pertinent only at the boring
locations and under the environment existing at the time of our
subsurface exploration. Variations in the subsurface conditions were
encountered and it is probable that additional variations exist that
cannot be determined from our borings, or our site reconnaissance. No
warranty, expressed or implied, is presented in this report with
respect to the subsurface conditions on this site. Contractors
preparing estimates and bids for this project should not rely solely on
the information in this report. Rather, they should conduct their own
subsurface exploration as they deem necessary.
mArr- nwamiireeere me
Mr. L. W. Samuelson
GME Project No. 3924 13 March 26, 1993
STANDARD OF CARE
The recommendations contained in this report are based on our
interpretation of the subsurface conditions and represent our
professional opinions. These opinions were arrived at in accordance
with currently accepted engineering practices at this time and
location. other yth this, no warranty is implied or intended.
Prepared by: Gregory R. Reuter, P.E.
Senior Project Engineer
Reviewed by: Mery h - M,
fdess,
Principa l Geotechnical Engineer
GRR:MM:cmp
I hereby certify that this plan, specification,
or report was repared by me or under my
direct supery ion and that I am a duly
0
Registerejdfess r under the
laws of th ate of 1 � �Iv
? �2 , C3regory R. Reuter
Date .�11.11 11 — Reg. No. 19885
CFAF MMIULTANTS INC
Soil Boring Location Diagram
General Notes
Soil Boring Logs
ASTM: D 2487 and D 2488
Special Notes Regarding Placement of Compacted Fill Soils
GMB enwUlISIIOTQ vac
f
i
®
i
B-1
-2
B
F1
(
I
PARKING AREA
i
B-3
B-4
- -- - --
93-2
3-1
PROPOSED
EUILDING
I
> 5
B-
LEGEND
9
93-3
BORINGS `IRIS RF.POR j
1 APPROXIMATE
® PREiiIOUS BOR1WS
DRIVE
SCAM
BY OTH F R 5
- -
- _
O. gp e
SOIL BORING LOCA`1'ION DIAGRAM
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
PROPOSED ADULT D A:Y CARE CENTER
14000 21st Avenue North
NEW HOPE, MINhiESUZA
Minneapolis, MN 55447
Jui
CRR
3/93
GME x3924
DRILLING & SAMPLING SYMBOLS:
Water Level
WCI :
SL
SS
SS with Liner
Split Spoon — 1 %" I.D., 2" O.D., unless
OS
Osterberg Sampler — 3" Shelby Tube
While Sampling
otherwise noted
HS
Hollow Stem Auger
ST
Shelby Tube — 2" O.D., unless otherwise noted
WS
Wash Sample
PA
Power Auger
FT
Fish Trail
DB
Diamond Bit — NX: BX: AX
RB
Rock Bit
AS
Auger Sample
BS
Bulk Sample
JS
Jar Sample
PM
Pressuremeter test — in situ
VS
Vane Shear
#4 to #200 sieve
And
Standard
"N" Penetration: Blows per foot of a 140 pound hammer falling
30 inches on a 2 inch OD split spoon, except
80+
where noted.
Silt
Passing #200 sieve
WL
Water Level
WCI :
Wet Cave In
DCI
Dry Cave In
WS
While Sampling
WD
While Drilling
BCR :
Before Casing Remvoal
ACR :
After Casing Removal
AB :
After Boring
Water levels indicated on the boring logs are the levels measured in the boring at the times indicated. In previous soils, the
indicated elevations are considered reliable ground water levels. In impervious soils, the accurate determination of ground
water elevations is not possible in even several days observation, and additional evidence of ground water elevations must be
sought.
GRADATION DESCRIPTION & TERMINOLOGY
Coarse Grained or Granular Soils have more than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are described as:
boulders, cobbles, gravel or sand. Fine Grained Soils have less than 50% of their dry weight retained on a #200 sieve; they are
described as: clays or clayey silts if they are cohesive, and silts if they are non - cohesive. In addition to gradation, granular
soils are defined on the basis of their relative in -place density and fine grained soils on the basis of their strength or
consistency, and their plasticity.
Major
Descriptive Term(s)
Component
(Of Components Also
Percent of
Of Sample
Size Range
Present in Sample)
Dry Weight
Boulders
Over 8 in. (200mm)
Trace
1 - 9
Cobbles
8 in. to 3 in.
Little
10-19
0.25-0.49
(200mm to 75mm)
4-9
Loose
Gravel
3 in. to #4 sieve
Some
20-34
1.00-1.99
(75mm to 2mm)
30-49
Dense
Sand
#4 to #200 sieve
And
35-50
4,00-8.00
(2mm to .074mm)
80+
Extremely Dense
Silt
Passing #200 sieve
(0.074mm to 0.005mm)
Clay
Smaller than 0.005mm
Unconfined
Comp.
Strength, Ou,
tsf _
Consistency
N — Blows /ft.
Relative Density
< 0.25
Very Soft
0-3
Very Loose
0.25-0.49
Soft
4-9
Loose
0.50-0.99
Medium (Firm)
10-29
Medium Dense
1.00-1.99
Stiff
30-49
Dense
2.00-3.99
Very Stiff
50-80
Very Dense
4,00-8.00
Hard
80+
Extremely Dense
> 8.00
Very Hard
r_mueernnmurevTC wr
LOG OF BORING 93- 1
PROJECT
Adult Day Care Center
SITE
New Hope, Minnesota
CLIENT
L.W. Samuelson Construction, Inc.
ARCHITECT - ENGINEER
w
U.
.
=
w
O
W
M
>
Z
a
W 0.
d ►-
G z
to d
w
>
L
w
d
3'.
W
0
Q
S
V
d
N
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
N
w
� N
_j H
d --r
n. w>
U.
�
JO
m
w
Uj
-�
Z
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS /FT. 2
1 2 3 4 5
I
~ — �
WATER
CONTENT %
'- ®--
STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS /FOOT)
-
10 20 30 40 50
SURFACE ELEVATION
898.1
1AS
0
Dark brown to black SILTY CLAY, trace
gravel - (CL) (Topsoil) jr
2SS
4 0
12
Brown fine SILTY SAND, trace gravel -
(SM) (FILL)
3SS
6,0
B
Brown SANDY CLAY, trace gravel, 6"
asphalt layer at 2.4 feet - stiff - (CL)
(FILL)
4SS
19.01
1
17
8
$
'
r
r
,
r
'
5SS
Bl ack fibric PEAT, trace wood, straw,
roots - firm - moist - (Pt) (FILL)
Gray and brown mottled SANDY CLAY,
trace gravel, organics - stiff to firm -
(CL) (FILL)
6SS
7SS
29.0
Black fibric PEAT, trace shells - soft -
wet - (Pt)
(Swamp Deposit)
4
3
;
,
I
r
,
8SS
9SS
34.0
Black ORGANIC SILT, trace clay - very
loose - wet - (ML -OL)
(Swamp Deposit)
2
I ,
Gray SANDY CLAY, trace gravel - soft to
stiff - (CL)
(Glacial Till)
Boring continued on next page
4
7
9
,
,
I
,
10SS
11SS
12SS
WATER
LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
Geotechnical - Materials - Environmental
1400021st Avenue No.
Minneapolis, MN 55447
16121 559 -1659
BORING STARTED 3/15/
W.L.
® 9 feet while drilling
BOR ING COMPLET 3/ 15/9 3
W. L.
RIG CME -550
DRILLER KJB
W.
DRAWN JLH
APPROVED GRR
JOB x 3924
SHEET 1 of 2
Boring caved at 33 feet after aug
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
removal
LOG OF BORING 93- 1
PROJECT
Adult Day Care Center
SITE
New Hope, Minnesota
CLIENT
L.W. Samuelson Construction, Inc.
ARCHITECT- ENGINEER
W
W
U.
=
W
0
o:
uj
2
>
Z a
U
-, >-
(L
¢ Z
U) Q
w
>
F-
LU
w
Q
�:
1—
LL
(D W
Q
x
Fes
I to
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
u
w
N
Q J
a w
to CC
3:
- j
m
w
J
>
Z
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT. 1
1 2 ._.0. -- 4 6
WATER
CONTENT %
-- ®-
STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS /FOOT)
-_ _
10 20 30 40 60
(continued)
I
59.0
Boring continued from previous page
Gray SANDY CLAY, trace gravel - soft to
stiff - (CL)
14
is
1
1
1
13SS
!fffZ 14SS
64.0
Gray fine to coarse SAND WITH SILT,
trace gravel - medium dense to dense -
wet - (SP -SM)
(Coarse Alluvium)
21
�\
15SS
zfffz
SS
81.0
Brown fine to coarse SAND, trace
gravel, silt - medium dense to dense -
wet - (SP)
(Outwash)
31
32
24
39
r
i
f
f
t
\
1
SS
17
SS
18
19SS
End of boring at 81 feet
Hollow stem auger used to 41 feet
Rotary mud drilling used from 41 to 81
feet
Borehole backfilled with cuttings
Frost encountered to 1.5 feet
WATER
LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
Geoteehnical • Materials. Environmental
14000 21st Avenue No.
Minneapolis, MN 55447
(612) 559 -1859
BORING START 3/15/9
W.L.
® 9 feet while drilling
BORING CO MPLETED 3/15/93
W. L.
RIG CME -550
DRILLER KJB
W L
DRAWN JLH
APPROVED GRR
JOB x 3924
SHEET 2 of 2
Boring caved at 33 feet after aug
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
removal
LOG OF BORING 93- 2
PROJECT
Adult Day Care Center
SITE
New Hope, Minnesota
CLIENT
L.W. Samuelson Construction, Inc.
ARCHITECT - ENGINEER
w
�W
CL
a
Uj
>
Z LU
U.1 jL >-
4
Q Z
to d
>
J
=
4
3
!—
W
U
=
U
to
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
w
F
Q J
Uj
CL w
to
s
-.1
—
J
z 1
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS /FT. 2
1 2 3 4 5
WATER
CONTENT %
- ® -•
STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS /FOOT)
-
10 20 30 40 so
SURFACE ELEVATION
895.4
1AS
1
Dark brown fine to medium SILTY
SAND, trace gravel, roots - (SM)
(Topsoil)
14.0
5
7
1
1
t
I
,
,
r
2SS
Brown and gray SANDY CLAY, trace
gravel, organics - firm - (CL) (FILL)
3SS
4SS
20.0
Black fibric PEAT - soft - wet - (Pt)
(Swamp Deposit)
3
I
I
I
5ss
24.0
Black ORGANIC SILT, trace clay - very
loose - wet - (ML -OL)
(Swamp Deposit)
3
I
6SS
Gray SANDY CLAY, trace gravel, 1' sand
layer at 29 feet - very soft to very stiff -
(CL)
(Glacial Till)
Boring continued on next page
.
3
g
11
13
I
t
1
1
1
I
7SS
8SS
9SS
10SS
WATER
LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
eotechnical • Materials- Environmental
14000 21st Avenue No.
Minneapolis. MN 55447 1612) 559.1859
BORING STARTED 3/16/9
W.L.
® 1 feet while drilling
BORING COMPLETED 3/16/9
W. L.
RIG CME -550
DRIL LER KJ B
W. L.
DRAWN jLH
APPROVED GRR
JOB u 3924
SHEET 1 Of 2
Boris caved at 45 feet after aug
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
removal
LOG OF BORING 93- 2
PROJECT
Adult Day Care Center
SITE
New Hope, Minnesota
CLIENT
L.W. Samuelson Construction, Inc.
ARCHITECT - ENGINEER
w
W
S
w
o
w
>
Z a
_j F
CL
Q z
to Q
>
J
X
Q
(—
uj
UJ
U.
a
=
U
to
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
w
�- N
q J
0- w>
to it
tL.
3
m
w
J
Q
2
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS /FT. 2
-0 --
1 2 3 4 5
—I I --
WATER
CONTENT %
-- ®--
STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS /FOOT)
10 20 30 40 60
(continued)
55.51
Boring continued from previous page
Gray SANDY CLAY, trace gravel - very
soft to very stiff - (CL)
(Outwash)
14
1 20
'
1
11 SS
12SS
76.0
Dark brown fine to coarse SAND, trace
gravel, silt - medium dense to dense -
wet - (SP)
27
28
32
51
1
4
l
1
1
\
13SS
Z ff Z l4SS
15SS
16SS
End of boring at 76 feet
Hollow stem auger used to 41 feet
Rotary mud drilling used from 41 to 76
feet
Borehole backfilled with cuttings
Frost encountered to 1.0 feet
*NOTE: Sampler advanced by weight of
rod and hammer
WATER
LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
14000 21st • Materials •Environmental
14000 21st Avenue No.
Minneapolis, MN 55447
(812) 559 -1859
BORING STARTED 3/ 16/93
W.L.
® 1 feet while drilling
_
BORING COM PLETED 3/16193
W L
RIG � M E -550
DRILLER KJB
W. L.
DRAWN JLH
APPROVED GRR
JOB # 3924
SHEET 2 Of 2
Boring caved at 45 feet after aug er
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
removal
LOG OF BORING 93- 3
PROJECT
Adult Day Care Center
SITE
New Hope, Minnesota
CLIENT
L.W. Samuelson Construction, Inc.
ARCHITECT - ENGINEER
w
LL
=
w
o
cc
U.1
>
Z a
V
J
a. H
Q z
to <t
>
J
X
Q
3
I—
U.
a W
Q
to
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
w
t-
Q
lu w
to It
3
-.1
w
>
z
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONSIFT. Y
- -0 - --
1 2 3 4 5
WATER
CONTENT %
-- ®--
STAN PENETRATION IBLOWS/FOOTI
—
10 20 30 40 so
SURFACE ELEVATION
896.8
1AS
0.5
9.0
Dark brown SILTY SANDY CLAY, trace
gravel - (CL) (Topsoil)
10
9
26
2SS
Brown, gray and dark brown SANDY
CLAY, trace gravel - stiff to very stiff -
(CL) (FILL)
3SS
4SS
5SS
14.0
Black fibric PEAT - firm - wet - (Pt)
(Swamp Deposit)
5
r
r
r
6SS
19.0'
Black fibric PEAT and ORGANIC SILT -
very soft - wet - (Pt and OL)
(Swamp Deposit)
2
1 ,
7SS
Gray SANDY CLAY, trace gravel - soft to
stiff - (CL)
(Glacial Till)
Boring continued on next page
4
5
7
10
15
13
I
I
s
I
1
I
I
s
1
t
t
r
r
I
r
8 SS
9SS
10SS
11SS
12SS
WATER
LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
Geotechnical • Materials • Environmental
1400021st Avenue No.
Minneapolis, 55447
(612) 559-1859
BORING STARTED 3 /12/93
W.L.
® 14 feet while drilling
BORING COMPLETED 3/12/9
W. L.
RIG CME -550
DRILLER KJB
W. L.
DRAWN JLH
APPROVED GRR
JOB # 3924
SHEET 1 of 2
Boring caved at 29.6 feet after auger
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
removal I
LOG OF BORING 93- 3
PROJECT
Adult Day Care Cent
SITE
New Hope, Minnesota
CLIENT
L.W. Samuelson Construction, Inc.
ARCHITECT - ENGINEER
w
LU
=
w a.
p
w
2
>
z a
-j
Q z
in Q
w
>
Uj
O C
h
Q
y
►—
w
W
0
Q
S
U
F
cc
N
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
in
w
~ N
Q J
a w
N cc
_
3
O
m
w
J
>
2
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONSIFT. 2
-0- -
"
1 2 3 4 6
—; I --;
WATER
CONTENT %
-- ®--
STANDARD PENETRATION tBLOWSIFOOTI
-
10 20 30 40 60
(continued)
49.0
Boring continued from previous page
Gray SANDY CLAY, trace gravel - soft to
stiff - (CL)
ZE& 13SS
59.0
26
8
{�
�
'
Brown fine to coarse SAND, trace
gravel, silt - medium dense - wet - (SP)
(Outwash)
14SS
70.0
Red brown fine to coarse SAND WITH
SILT, trace gravel - dense to medium
dense - wet - (SP -SM)
(Glacial Till)
34
28
24
r
r
r
r
15SS
SS
16
SS
17
End of boring at 70 feet
Hollow stem auger used to 41 feet
Rotary mud drilling used from 41 to 70
feet
Borehole backfilled with cuttings
Frost encountered to 1.5 feet
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
Geotechnical • Materials • Environmental
14000 21st Avenue No.
Minneapolis, MN 55447
(612) 559 -1859
BORING STARTED 3 /12/93
W.L.
® 14 #eet while drilling
BORING COMPLETED 3/
W. L
RIG CME -550
DRILLER KJB
W. L.
DRAWN JLI-I
APPROVED GRR
JOB # 3924
SHEET 2 Of 2
Boring caved at 29.6 feet after auger
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
removal I
Adult Day Care Center
CLIENT
L.W. Samuelson Constr Inc.
W
W
� W
m J Z DESCRIPTI
w > > =
u Z W -W.( V UJI
= a E LU t-
1-
Q cc
o u Q 3 N
1AS 0.
2SS
3SS 6.0
4SS
= WM EM (
r
LOG OF BORING 93- 4
SITE
New Hope, Minnesota
ARCHITECT - ENGINEER
ON OF MATERIAL
11
12
14.0
6SS Black sapric PEAT - soft - wet - (Pt)
(Swamp Deposit)
7SS
24.
8SS
7 34.
10166
1SS
Dark gray ORGANIC SILT WITH SAND -
very loose - wet - (ML -OL)
(Swamp Deposit)
Black sapric PEAT - soft - wet - (Pt)
(Swamp Deposit)
Gray SANDY CLAY, trace gravel - firm to
very stiff - (CL)
(Glacial Till)
25
s 1
,
r
3
r
r
I
1
4
2
1
I
1
4
12
11
I
l
(
t
1
12 SS 15
Boring continued on next page
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 3/12/93
W. L. ® 10 feet while drilling GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COM PLETED 3/12/93
Geotechnical • Materials • Environmental
W. L. 14000 21st Avenue No. R IG ' CME -550 DRILLER KJB
W. L.
Minneapolis, MN 55447 DRAWN _,.,,._,.... ,.,.._ J .
(612!559.1859 LI{ APPROVED GRR
JOB x 3924 SHEET 1 of 2
Boring caved at 46 feet after aug er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
SURFACE ELEVATION
896.0
Dark brown SILTY SANDY CLAY, trace
gravel - (CL) (Topsoil)
Brown SANDY CLAY, trace gravel - stiff
- (CL) (FILL)
Gray brown fine to medium SILTY SAND
WITH CLAY, trace gravel - medium
dense to loose - moist - (SM -SC) (FILL)
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS/FT.
1 2 3 4 6
N
�; I 1
`'--
WATER
(n
OJ
CONTENT %
UJI
00
JQ
J
J
STANDARD PENETRATION (BLOWS /FOOT)
N �
Z
10 20 30 40 60
11
12
14.0
6SS Black sapric PEAT - soft - wet - (Pt)
(Swamp Deposit)
7SS
24.
8SS
7 34.
10166
1SS
Dark gray ORGANIC SILT WITH SAND -
very loose - wet - (ML -OL)
(Swamp Deposit)
Black sapric PEAT - soft - wet - (Pt)
(Swamp Deposit)
Gray SANDY CLAY, trace gravel - firm to
very stiff - (CL)
(Glacial Till)
25
s 1
,
r
3
r
r
I
1
4
2
1
I
1
4
12
11
I
l
(
t
1
12 SS 15
Boring continued on next page
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS BORING STARTED 3/12/93
W. L. ® 10 feet while drilling GME CONSULTANTS, INC. BORING COM PLETED 3/12/93
Geotechnical • Materials • Environmental
W. L. 14000 21st Avenue No. R IG ' CME -550 DRILLER KJB
W. L.
Minneapolis, MN 55447 DRAWN _,.,,._,.... ,.,.._ J .
(612!559.1859 LI{ APPROVED GRR
JOB x 3924 SHEET 1 of 2
Boring caved at 46 feet after aug er The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
removal between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
SURFACE ELEVATION
896.0
Dark brown SILTY SANDY CLAY, trace
gravel - (CL) (Topsoil)
Brown SANDY CLAY, trace gravel - stiff
- (CL) (FILL)
Gray brown fine to medium SILTY SAND
WITH CLAY, trace gravel - medium
dense to loose - moist - (SM -SC) (FILL)
LOG OF BORING 93- 4
PROJECT
Adult Day Care Center
SITE
New Hope, Minnesota
CLIENT
L.W. Samuelson Construction, Inc.
ARCHITECT- ENGINEER
w
UJI
LL
_
W
p
w
Co
2
Z a
v
-, F
0-
Q Z
to Q
>
J
w
Q
`
LL U.
0
z
Cr
N
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
in
t- N
Q J
0-w
N =
3:
m
W
Z
UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH TONS /FT. 2
1 2 3 4 6
WATER
CONTENT %
-- ® --
STAN PENETRATION (BLOWS /FOOT)
- _
10 20 30 40 50
(continued)
59.01
Boring continued from previous page
Gray SANDY CLAY, trace gravel - firm to
very stiff - (CL)
19
22
1
4
t
,
1 3S
14SS
64.0
Brown fine to coarse SAND, trace
gravel, silt - medium dense - wet - (SP)
(0utwash)
20
`
15SS
SS
70.0
Brown fine to coarse SILTY SAND, trace
gravel - dense - wet - (SM)
(Glacial Till)
3 7
39
;
16
17SS
End of boring at 70 feet
Hollow stem auger used to 41 feet
Rotary mud drilling used from 41 to 70
feet
Borehole backfilled with cuttings
Frost encountered to 2 feet
WATER LEVEL OBSERVATIONS
GME CONSULTANTS, INC.
eotechnical aterials • Environmental
1400021 at Avenue No.
Minneapolis, MN 55447
(612) 559.1859
BORING STARTED 3/12/9
W.L.
® 10 feet while drilling
_
BORING COMPLETED_ 3/
W. L.
RIG CME-550
DRILLER KJ B
W. L.
DRAWN JLH
APPROVED GRR
JOB # 3924
SHEET 2 of 2
Boring caved at 46 feet after auger
The stratification lines represent approximate boundaries
between soil types; insitu the transition may be gradual.
removal
CLASSIFICATION OF SO ILS FOR ENGI NEERING
(ASTM: D 2487 and 2488)
Major divisions ( Group Typical names Laboratory classification criteria
symbols � I
i
H
° o
N
C
Z
c
a
r
m �
o.
n A
ag
c "
i.9
rnW
LL E
A
r
C
W
w
O
ML
c
w
a
M
U y
CL
c r•
a •-
�, E
c
J
OL
N MH
C
a
_t
a
a
U W
v : CH
a O
tl1 E
in
c•
d OH
a
E rna= Pt
Z 0 2
Weil- graded gravels, gravel -sand
mixtures, little or no fines
Poorly graded gravels, gravel -
sand mixtures, little or no fines
Silty gravels, gravel - sand -silt
mixtures
Clayey gravels, gravel - sand -clay
mixtures
Weil- graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
Poorly graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
Silty sands, sand -slit mixtures
Clayey sands, sand -clay mix-
tures
Inorganic silts and very fine
sands, rock flour, silty or clay-
ey fine sands or clayey slits
with slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to me-
dium plasticity, gravelly clays,
sandy clays, silty clays, lean
clays
Organic slits and organic silty
clays of low plasticity
c
L
v
Inorganic silts, micaceous or m
diatomaceous fine sandy or Q.
silty soils, elastic silts
Inorganic clays of high plas-
ticity, fat clays
Organic clays of medium to
high plasticity, organic sifts
Peat and other highly organic
soil
D, (D30/
a d
6W
v
O10 D10XD60
m c
o
° c
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
v 'A 4
$
36)
m m N c
v N
c p
-
c 3c o
line or P.I. less than 4
Above "A" line with P.I.
m „
Z r °v O t7 a
m d
V V
GP
Z line
$ e
41 a W
Atterberg limits below "A"
of dual symbols
o
z
line or Pl. greater than 7
--
Cs =
C
/��
d
>
___
�0
GM
Ofo OioXOso
p �
td
A
N
d
a
L N
a a
o c r
U
d
c'
3aC
Z
aW
o
a a
c H c
O m a
9 «
Limits plotting in hatched
t,Q
GC
a
c o a ct
W d °
zone with P.i, between 4
c Q'
and 7 are borderline cases
m �
requiring use of dual sym-
Atterberg limits below "A"
bola.
line or P.1. greater than 7
m
`w
oio
d
•,c
SW
U E
c
c o
6
o d
c
W
N
m
c
Q °
t
`
a
my
r
U
SP
W
v
i
m u O
�
coZ
d
rt10,
c
c °
c
a a
E
SM
W
a E
E a
r a d
u
m
��
3W c
C V O
a
M Q
SC
i
H
° o
N
C
Z
c
a
r
m �
o.
n A
ag
c "
i.9
rnW
LL E
A
r
C
W
w
O
ML
c
w
a
M
U y
CL
c r•
a •-
�, E
c
J
OL
N MH
C
a
_t
a
a
U W
v : CH
a O
tl1 E
in
c•
d OH
a
E rna= Pt
Z 0 2
Weil- graded gravels, gravel -sand
mixtures, little or no fines
Poorly graded gravels, gravel -
sand mixtures, little or no fines
Silty gravels, gravel - sand -silt
mixtures
Clayey gravels, gravel - sand -clay
mixtures
Weil- graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
Poorly graded sands, gravelly
sands, little or no fines
Silty sands, sand -slit mixtures
Clayey sands, sand -clay mix-
tures
Inorganic silts and very fine
sands, rock flour, silty or clay-
ey fine sands or clayey slits
with slight plasticity
Inorganic clays of low to me-
dium plasticity, gravelly clays,
sandy clays, silty clays, lean
clays
Organic slits and organic silty
clays of low plasticity
c
L
v
Inorganic silts, micaceous or m
diatomaceous fine sandy or Q.
silty soils, elastic silts
Inorganic clays of high plas-
ticity, fat clays
Organic clays of medium to
high plasticity, organic sifts
Peat and other highly organic
soil
10
7
4
0
0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Plasticity Chart
D, (D30/
C greater than 4; C between 1 and 3
v
O10 D10XD60
c �
C
W C
a "c
a
Not meeting all gradation requirements for GW
v 'A 4
$
36)
m m N c
o
Atterberg limits below "A"
-
c 3c o
line or P.I. less than 4
Above "A" line with P.I.
m „
Z r °v O t7 a
between 4 and 7 are border -
Z line
cases requiring use
41 a W
Atterberg limits below "A"
of dual symbols
c =
W
line or Pl. greater than 7
--
E E
/��
c
pso (D30)
___
C than 4; C between 1 and 3
m
a
Ofo OioXOso
C d
o c r
Not meeting all gradation requirements for SW
a C y u
W a a v
W
`c
U G N r U
c H c
O m a
Atterberg limits below "A"
Limits plotting in hatched
• 0).S
line or P.I. less than 4
c o a ct
W d °
zone with P.i, between 4
E y c
and 7 are borderline cases
requiring use of dual sym-
Atterberg limits below "A"
bola.
line or P.1. greater than 7
10
7
4
0
0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Plasticity Chart
fine-grain
— soils and fine fraction of coarse-
L soils.
hatched area are borderline classi-
- fications requiring use of dual
symbols
Equation of A-line:
_
-
--
���I�
--
��
/��
___
--
10
7
4
0
0 10 20 30 40 so 60 70 80 90 100
Liquid Limit
Plasticity Chart
GENERAL
The placement of compacted fill for support of foundations, floor slabs, pavements, or earth structures should be
carried out by an experienced excavator with the proper equipment. The excavator must be prepared to adapt his
procedures, equipment, and materials to the type of project, to weather conditions, and the structural requirements of
the architect and engineer. Methods and materials used in summer may not be applicable in winter; fill used in dry
excavations may not be suitable in wet excavations or during periods of precipitation; proposed fill soil may require
wetting or drying for proper placement and compaction. Conditions may also vary during the course of a project or in
different areas of the site. These needs should be addressed in the project drawings and specifications.
EXCAVATION /BACKFILL BELOW THE WATER TABLE
It is common to have to excavate and replace unsuitable soils below the water table for site correction. As a general
rule of prudent construction technique, we recommend that excavation /backfill below the water table not be permitted,
unless the excavation is dewatered. Numerous problems can develop when this procedure is attempted without
dewatering.
— Inability of the equipment operators and soil technicians to
observe that all unsuitable soil /materials have been removed from
the base of the excavation.
— Inability to observe and measure that proper lateral oversizing is
provided.
— Inability to prevent or correct sloughing of excavation sidewalls,
which can result in unsuitable soils trapped within the select
backfill.
— Inability of the contractor to adequately and uniformly compact
the backfill.
— Possibility of disturbance of the suitable soils at the base of the
excavation.
The dewatering methods, normally chosen at the contractor's option, should follow prudent construction practice.
Excavations in clay can often be dewatered with sump pits and pumps; this technique would not be applicable for
excavation extending into permeable granular soil, especially for depths significantly below the water table. Dewater-
ing granular soils should normally be done with well points or wells. When dewatering is needed, we strongly
recommend that the procedures be discussed at pre -bid or pre- construction meetings. The dewatering technique
chosen by the contractor should be reviewed by the architect and engineer before construction starts; it should not be
left until excavation is under way.
The selection of proper backfill materials is important when working in dewatered excavations. Even with dewatering,
the base is usually wet and the contractor must be careful not to disturb the base. We recommend that the first lifts of
backfill be a clean medium to course grain sand with less than 5% passing the #200 sieve. The use of silty sand, clayey
sand, or cohesive /semi- cohesive soils is not recommended for such situations. The excavator should be required to
submit samples of the proposed material(s) he plans to use as backfill before the fill is hauled to the site, so that it can
be tested for suitability.
WINTER EARTHWORK CONSTRUCTION
Winter earthwork presents its own range of problems which must be overcome; the situation may be complicated by
the need for dewatering discussed above.
During freezing conditions, the fill used must not be frozen when delivered to the site. It also must not be allowed to
freeze during or after compaction. Since the ability to work the soil while keeping it from freezing depends in part on
the soil type, the specifications should require the contractor to submit a sample of his proposed fill before construc-
tion starts, for laboratory testing. If the soil engineer and structural engineer determine that it is not suitable, it should
be rejected. In general, silty sand, clayey sand, and cohesive /semi- cohesive soils should not be used as fill under
freezing conditions. All frozen soil of any type should be rejected for use as compacted fill.
It is important that compacted fill be protected from freezing after it is placed. The excavator should be required to
submit a plan for protecting the soil. The plan should include details on the type and amount of material (straw,
blankets, extra loose fill, topsoil, etc.) proposed for use as frost protection. The need to protect the soil from freezing is
ongoing throughout construction and applies both before and after concrete is placed, until backfilling for final frost
protection is completed. Foundations placed on frozen soil can experience heaving and significant settlement, rota-
tion, or other movement as the soil thaws. Such movement can also occur if the soil is allowed to freeze after the
concrete is placed and then allowed to thaw. The higher the percentage of fines (clay and silt, P -200 material) in the fill,
the more critical is the need for protection from freezing.
nMFrnounm TemTC mr
MOISTURE CONTROL OF FILL
The contractor should be required to adjust the moisture content of the soil to within a narrow range near the optimum
moisture content (as defined by the applicable Proctor or AASHTO Test). In general, fill should be placed within about
2% of optimum. The need for moisture control is more critical as the percentage of fines increases. Naturally - occurring
clayey sand or cohesive /semi- cohesive soil are often much wetter than the optimum. Placing and attempting to
compact such soils to the specified density may be difficult, or not possible. Even if compacted to the specified density,
excessively wet soils may not be suitable as floor slab or pavement subgrades due to pumping under applied load. This
is especially true when wet cohesive /semi- cohesive soil is used as backfill in utility trenches under streets. Excessively
wet soil in thick fill sections may cause post- construction settlement beyond that estimated for fill placed at or near
(2 %) the optimum moisture content.
An exception to this would be low permeability soil placed as a pond liner or for a dam. Such soil should usually be
placed at 2% to 4% above the optimum moisture content, to provide for a lower insitu permeability. Also, shrinking/
swelling soils (expansive clay) should be placed at about 2% to 4% above optimum moisture to reduce the possibility of
soil expansion. Clayey silt, silt, or very silty fine sand should be placed excessively dry. Such soils can undergo
post- construction consolidation upon being wetted, even if the specified density had been achieved. This is caused by
the collapse of flocculant soil particle arrangement, and can result in settlement of buildings or slabs constructed over
the soil.
Proper control of fill soil moisture is the responsibility of the excavator. The excavator should evaluate the need for
wetting or drying the soils, based either on the data in the soil report, or his own site testing. If the excavator is bringing
in off -site fill, it is also his responsibility to evaluate the moisture content of the soil, and the need for wetting or drying.
We recommend that this matter be addressed in the project specifications.
CONSTRUCTION ON COMPACTED SOIL
After the select fill has been placed, compacted, and tested, it must be maintained and protected in order to properly
support structures. The suitability of compacted fill soil can be greatly diminished if it is allowed to freeze, become
saturated while unconfined (such as in footing excavations or at the surface of slab /placement subgrade), or disturbed
by construction equipment.
The responsibility for protecting the soil, or for correcting any disturbance, should be clearly defined in the specifica-
tions. Soils which become wet and soft after compaction testing do not necessarily reflect inaccurate field density
tests. Especially with non - expansive cohesive /semi - cohesive soils, saturation when unconfined can severely reduce
the shear strength while the density remains adequate. The reduced shear strength can cause footings, floor slabs, or
pavements to settle or fail under load. We strongly recommend that all pavement subgrade be test rolled (MN /DOT
Specification 2111) immediately before paving to determine if the subgrade has not been protected and soft spots have
developed.
FLOOR SLAB SUBGRADE AND UTILITY TRENCHES
This facet of construction presents special problems, especially if the slab subgrade is allowed to freeze. When the soil
thaws, it undergoes a period of temporarily lower shear strength. Floor slabs should not be cast over soil in such a
weakened or frozen condition (reference pertinent PCA and ACI publications). To do so can result in cracked and
failing slabs. The time period to heat and thaw a building may place the construction schedule and /or costs in
jeopardy. We strongly recommend that this matter be reviewed in pre -bid and pre- construction meetings.
Backfilling of utility trenches in the floor slab subgrade can be difficult. If the soil is wet, compaction to the specified
density may be difficult, or not possible. The narrowly cut trenches may preclude the use of proper compaction
equipment. With the use of small equipment in confined areas, the contractor must place the soil in thin lifts (4 to 6
inches), with the soil at the proper moisture content. This work is typically carried out by contractors other than the
mass grading or earthwork contractor. We strongly recommend that the responsibility to carry out the compaction be
clearly detailed in the applicable section of the specifications, and reviewed with the appropriate contractor and
subcontractor.
GME CONSULTANTS_ UNC
,�� 11 • 11
To: Kirk McDonald, Community Development Director
From: Erin Seeman, Community Development Intern
Date: June 29, 2001
Subject: 5501 Boone Avenue North
Background
The EDA acquired the property at 5501 Boone Avenue North by condemnation proceedings with
the owner beginning in 1992 for the development proposed by North Ridge and Senior Outreach
Services, which is now Minnesota Masonic Homes. In 1994, all parties were served with
process. The City had commenced an eminent domain proceeding per Minn. Stat Chap. 117 to
acquire the defendant's vacant property. This was a "total taking" case, and the only issue was
the land or damages for the taking. It was determined that the land's highest and best use was
industrial. The value was affected by the poor sub -grade soil conditions that would require costly
corrections before anything could be built on the sight.
In 1995 the City Council approved the rezoning of the property from 1 -1 to R -5, subject to the
construction of the adult day care facility.
In 1997, there was an agreement between the City and the EDA about the use of the $100,000
that was set aside in the form of CDBG funding that would assist the development of the adult
daycare facility at 5501 Boone Avenue N. The EDA was responsible for redevelopment since
there were condemnation proceedings. There was a third party agreement that permitted the City
to delegate its responsibilities, powers, and authority to the EDA for the development of the site.
The County required the documentation of the third party agreement between the City and the
EDA to establish clear authority for the FDA's use of the City's CDBG funds. In the agreement,
the site was to be developed in a timely manner. If not, the $100,000 of funds form the County's
CDBG funds used toward the sale price of the site that was $376,764, was to be paid back. The
conditions of this are:
The county would receive 27% of any sale price of the property if it were sold rather that
developed under the conditions of the County and the CDBG.
The area of concern is Lot 1, Block 2 Science Industry Center, 3` Addition located at 5501 Boone
Avenue N. This is 171, 300 square feet and 3.93 acres. The EDA has also acquired 90 square
feet of Lot 2, Block 2 Science Industry Center, 3` Addition located at 5425 Boone Avenue North.
The City, and further more the County, has granted several extensions to Minnesota Masonic
Homes. The most recent extension of the contract is until October 2003. This is their second
three -year term. This was partly due to their buy -out of Northridge and Senior Outreach Services
in the spring of 1999. After the buy -out, Minnesota Masonic Homes began to look closely at their
strategic plans to determine the appropriate location for their respective services. The inactivity
continued, and the redevelopment process was not happening. In early 2001, Minnesota
Masonic Homes informed the City that they were no longer interested in pursuing redevelopment
of the area.
Current Agreement
Under the CDBG Agreement, the EDA purchased the property for $376,764.00; this is including
$100,000 of the CDBG. "The EDA acknowledged receipt of the sum of $100,000 provided
through the Urban Hennepin Community Block Grant program to purchase and acquire property
at 5501 and 5425 Boone Avenue North in the City of New Hope, County of Hennepin, State of
Minnesota, legally described below. The parties acknowledge and agree the total purchase price
for the following described properties was $376,764.00. "' "In consideration for the receipt of the
$100,000.00 Urban Hennepin County Community Development Block Grant, the EDA covenants
and agrees that the purpose of such purchase and acquisition of said property is for the
development of an adult daycare facility and /or senior center public facility... "" "If at the end of
the three years or during the second three year period if the initial period should be so extended,
it appears to the County through OPD that the project proposed is no longer viable or feasible so
that the EDA could not develop the project on the site, then, in such event, the County through
OPD may,
A. Approve an alternate use of the land for a project eligible for Community Development
Block Grant Funding or
B. Require that the site be sold for fair market value. The fair market value shall be
established in accordance with the Uniform Act (49 CFR Part 24). "
If we select option A we must use a CDBG eligible project. Types of projects would include:
• A public facility or improvement that will be used for the benefit of all residents in
a primarily residential area and at least 51 % low to middle income persons.
• Rehabilitation of a building to be used as a center for training severely disabled
persons to enable them to live independently.
• Site improvements on publicly owned land to serve a new apartment structure to
be rented to low or middle - income households at affordable rents.
As part of an earlier agreement, the EDA must pay back 27% percent of the selling price, or at
least $100,000.00 to Hennepin County to satisfy the conditions of the CDBG program.
In 1993 a Geotechnical Exploration was conducted on the site. Numerous fill piles were
observed on the property. Published maps by the Minnesota Geological Survey indicated that
the surface soils at this site are post - glacial, organic, swamp deposited peat and organic silt. The
exploration included the drilling of four borings. In each of the borings 9 to 14 feet of fill was
found. It consisted of a non - uniform mixture of sand, clay and organic soils. Due to the presence
of the uncontrolled fill and buried organic soils, it was recommended that the structure be
supported on a deep foundation system. The depth of the fill and organic soils is 19 to 34 feet.
The recommendation was to use 12 3 /4 inch outside diameter steel pipes with a minimum wall
thickness of 0.250 inches and should be driven closed ended with a flat plate welded to the toe of
the pipe. These piles that will bear the medium dense material with a depth of up to 65 feet could
be allowed a load of 70 tons per pile. A recommended allowance of 30 tons per pile for negative
skin friction or down drag loading, and leaving 40 tons per pile for structural support. The
consultant recommended that the interior floor slab be a structural slab, supported on piles and
grade beams. The exterior pile caps should be based at least 4 feet below final exterior grade for
frost protection.
In 2000, and furthermore in 2001, the City Council approved plans for an addition and storm
sewer improvements for the Public Works Facility which occupies the lot directly to the west of
the lots, 5425 and 5501 Boone Avenue North, in question. The 5501 Boone Avenue North parcel
JUM
and the north 75 feet of 5425 Boone Avenue North were platted as Lot 2 of Science Industry
Center Third Addition in 1993. The dimensions of these properties are as follows;
• 5501 Boone Avenue North 300x571 171,300 Square Feet 3.93 Acres
• North 75' of 5425 Boone Avenue North 300x75 22,500 Square Feet .516 Acres
The pond area that occupies the North end of 5501 Boone Avenue North is equal to 39,000
square feet and .90 acres. This equals out to be 22% of the platted lots. This leaves 3.576 acres
available for development. These distances are approximate until final survey.
The cost estimate for the improvements including pond construction and storm sewer, pavement,
and curbing adequate for both properties was $78,000.00. In July, the City Council approved the
bid amount from G.L. Contracting in the amount of $101,493.32. As a break down, the Public
Works storm sewer and parking lot construction totaled $58,903.60 and the Public Works and
"Care Break" pond construction totaled $41,546.00. In the agreement, it was stated that the cost
for construction of this pond would be shared between Public Works and the Care Break
organization, or any other future owner as the pond would be effective for both properties.
'Land Disposition Agreement, Page 1, Part I.
" Land Disposition Agreement, Page 2, Part 11.
"' Land Disposition Agreement, Page 3, Part M.
• Page 3
C t),-
CI - 1 - ;qt - - 10--1 0
t �M Oerid r i 01-wY0 C vim r�t p'i vi , m,fv . vl s
%MZMqMK=
A new Five -Year Consolidated Plan (20CC -2C04) was completed in the spring of 200C.
The Five -Year Plan is the result of the collaboration of interested individuals,
government agencies, for -profit and nonprofit agencies. The Five -Year Plan identifies
current housing and market conditions that relate to housing and community
development needs within suburban Hennepin County. After careful evaluation of the
housing and market inventory, community input, and a meaningful citizen participation
process, strategies have been formulated to address the community priority needs.
Housing and Community Development Five -year Goals and Priorities
Below is a summary of the highest priorities, as identified in 2000 for the Five -Year Plan.
The goals and priorities were identified using the results of the community survey and
questionnaire and community meetings, as well as an assessment of funding resources
anticipated to be made available to Hennepin County, its Consortium partners -
Bloomington and Plymouth, and others.
HUD resources will be used to:
• Preserve the existing affordable housing supply.
• Provide new affordable rental housing to households with income below 50
percent of median income.
• Provide supportive housing for persons with special needs.
• Improve housing owned or rented by households with income below 50 percent
of median income.
• Provide increased opportunities for homeownership to households with income
below 50 percent of median income.
• Target Emergency Shelter Grant funds to prevention activities and housing-
related support services for families and youth.
• Target public service funding to activities that reduce barriers for self - sufficiency
by families, foster and maintain self - sufficiency by the elderly, and meet the
needs of youth.
• Use neighborhood revitalization to eliminate blighting influences and create
new opportunities for affordable housing and mixed -use development.
• Affirmatively further fair housing through education, outreach and enforcement.
Housing a y ment Goals p
and Community Development II
20.00 -2004
i
Housing
Pri ority
I Five Year Goal !I
RENTERS
❑ Small Family /Unrelated Individual
High <50 %MFI
800 units
❑ Large Family
High <50 %MFI
50 units
❑ Elderly
High <30 %MFI
150 units
❑ Physically Disabled
High < 30 %MFI
50 units
OWNERS
❑ Existing Homeowners
■ Housing Rehabilitation
High <50 %MFI
1,200 units
• Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention
44
1,000 households
❑ First Time Homebuyers
• Homeownership Assistance
High <80 %MFI
1,300 households
• Physically Disabled
5 households
• Homeownership Training
1,250 households
HOMELESS PERSONS
❑ Prevention & Housing Services
Use Continuum of
500 persons
(ESGP funds only)
Care
❑ Housing units /beds (Includes
Use Continuum of
100 units /beds
shelter /transitional housing for
Care
survivors of domestic abuse)
PERSONS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS
(Non - Homeless)
❑ Frail Elderly
Medium
50 units /beds
• Chemically Dependent
Low
50 units /beds
• Mentally III
High
150 units /beds
❑ Developmentally Disabled
Medium
50 units /beds
❑ . Physically Disabled
Medium
50 units /beds
❑ Persons with AIDS
Medium
50 units /beds
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & PUBLIC
SERVICES
❑ Senior Services/ Facilities
High
NA
• Family Services/ Facilities
High
NA
• Youth Services
High
NA
• Neighborhood Revitalization
High
NA
❑ Transportation Services High
NA
iveignoorn000 revitat anon, for removal of bhghted housing, is a high priority only when a minimum of 20
percent of new or rehabilitated housing is affordable to low and moderate - income households.
HUD Table 2A
2000 -2004 Priority Housing Needs Summary
The term "physical defects" indicates a substandard unit. Also, it should be noted that, in most
cases, a "L- low" or "N- no need" priority does not mean that the category is unimportant.
Rather, it means the need should be addressed with other (non -HUD) anticipated resources.
Priority Need Level
ESTIMATED
ESTIMATED
High, Medium, Low,
UNITS
DOLLARS TO
PRIORITY HOUSING NEEDS
No Such Need
NEEDED
ADDRESS
(households)
(Based on 1990
NEED
Census Data)
0 -30%
31 -50%
51 -80%
Small
Cost - Burden >30%
H
H
L
1.852
Unknown
Family
Cost- Burden >50%
H
H
M
2,939
Unknown
&
Phvsical Defects
H
H
M
10,217
Unknown
Unrelated
Individual
Unknown
Overcrowded
M
L
L
N/A
Cost - Burden >30%
H
H
L
168
Unknown
Renter
Cost - Burden >50%
H
H
M
289
Unknown
Large
Unknown
Family
Physical Defects
H
H
M
533
Unknown
Overcrowded
H
H
M
305
Unknown
Cost - Burden >30%
H
M
L
733
Unknown
Cost - Burden >50%
H
M
L
2,118
Elderly
Physical Defects
H
H
M
5,496
Unknown
Overcrowded
N
N
N
N/A
Unknown
Cost - Burden >30%
M
L
L
N/A
Unknown
Existing
Cost - Burden >50%
H
M
L
3,208
Unknown
Owner - Occupied
Physical Defects
H
H
M
9,163
Unknown
Housing
Overcrowded
L
L
L
N/A
Unknown
The term "physical defects" indicates a substandard unit. Also, it should be noted that, in most
cases, a "L- low" or "N- no need" priority does not mean that the category is unimportant.
Rather, it means the need should be addressed with other (non -HUD) anticipated resources.
HUD Table 2B
Prinritv C'nmmunity Development Needs Summary
PRIORITY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Priority Need Level
High, Medium, Low, No
Such Need
ESTIMATED
DOLLARS TO
ADDRESS
NEED
PUBLIC FACILITY NEEDS
Senior Centers
H
Unknown
Youth Centers
M
N/A
Neighborhood Facilities
M
N/A
Child Care Centers
L
N/A
Parks and/or Recreation Facilities
M
N/A
Health Facilities
L
N/A
Parking Facilities
L
N/A
Other Public Facilities
L
N/A
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT
Solid Waste Disposal Improvements
L
N/A
Flood Drain Improvements
L
N/A
Water Improvements
L
N/A
Street Improvements
L
N/A
Sidewalk Improvements
L
N/A
Sewer Improvements
L
N/A
Asbestos Removal
L
N/A
Other Infrastructure Improvement Needs
L,
N/A
PRIORITY CONEVIUNITY
DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Priority Need Level
High, Medium. Low, No
Such Need
ESTLNIATED
DOLLARS TO
ADDRESS
NEED
PUBLIC SERVICE NEEDS
Senior Services
H
Unknown
Handicapped Services
H
Unknown
Youth Services
H
unknown
Transportation Services
H
Unknown
Substance Abuse Services
L,
N/A
Employment Training
L
N/A
Crime Awareness
M
N/A
Fair Housing Counseling
H
Unknown
Tenant/Landlord Counseling
H
Unknown
Child Care Services
H
Unknown
Health Services
L
N/A
Other Public Service Needs
Mortgage Foreclosure Prevention
H
Unknown
ACCESSIBILITY NEEDS (removal of existing architectural barriers)
Accessibility Needs (In Hennepin County, a high
priority only when part of another high priority
low- moderate income benefit activity such as a
senior center, housing rehabilitation, etc.)
L
HISTORIC PRESERVATION NEEDS
Residential Historic Preservation Needs
L,
N/A
Non - Residential Historic Preservation Needs
L,
N/A
PRIORITY COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Priority Need Level
High, Medium, Low, No
Such Need
ESTIMATED
DOLLARS TO
ADDRESS
NEED
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Commercial - Industrial Rehabilitation
M
N/A
Commercial - Industrial Infrastructure
M
NIA
Other Commercial - Industrial Improvements
L,
N/A
Micro- Business
L
N/A
Other Businesses
L
N/A
Technical Assistance
L
N/A
Other Economic Development Needs
(job expansion/retention)
L
N/A
OTHER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS
Energy Efficiency Improvements
M
N/A
Lead Based Paint/Hazards
H
Unknown
Code Enforcement
M
N/A
PLANNING
Planning
M
N/A
TOTAL ESTIMATED DOLLARS NEEDED TO ADDRESS: $ Unknown
The term "physical defects" indicates a substandard unit. Also, it should be noted that, in most
cases, a "L- low" or "N- no need" priority does not mean that the category is unimportant.
Rather, it means the need should be addressed with other (non -HUD) anticipated resources.
May-29, 2001 12:03PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No-4472 P. 1/13
. a
Hennepin
IL
Development Planning Unit FAX
DATE:
Number of Pages (ixncludting cover page) 1 , ^.
Hennepin County <)We of Planning gC Development, Devpftrnene Planning Unit
10709 Wayzata Boulevard, Suim 260, Minnetonka, MN 55305
Phone, (952) 541 -7080 - Fax: (952) 541 -7090 - TDDn7Y= (952) 541-7981
May-29, 2001 12:03PM VENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
No.441Z F. ZIJ�
Scope of While there are many aspects that must be considered in selecting
Selection activities to assist under the cjD5G program, there are six key steps a
Decisions grantee should take in the early stages of the process of determining if
111,11, CDBG funds may be used to assist a proposed activity.
The first step is to determine if the activity is included within the listing
of eligible activities in the CDBG statute, as amplified by regulation. This
Guide describes all categories of basic eligibility which were authorized
at the time of publication..
The second step is to determine if the proposed activity falls within a
category of explicitly ineligible activities, despite its apparent inclusion
within an authorized category. For example, while public facilities are
generically eligible for assistance with CDBG funds, there is an explicit
statutory bar to providing assistance to "buildings for the general
conduct of government" under the category of Public Facilities and
Improvements. The explicitly ineligible activities are identified in this
Guide, as well as those that may be made eligible under particular
categories.
The third and arguably most important step is to determine if the
proposed activity can meet one ofthe national objectives of the program.
This Guide describes this requirement in some detail.
The fourth step is to ensure that carrying out the activity with CDBG
funds will not result in the grantee violating its certification that at least
70% of CDBG expenditures will be for activities that are considered to
benefit W income persons over the one, two, or three consecutive
program years specified by the grantee. The procedure for calculating
overall program expenditures for this purpose is described in this Guide.
The :Fifth step is to review proposed costs of the activity to determine if
they appear to be necessary and reasonable and will otherwise conform
with the requirements of OMB Circulars A-87, "Cost Principles for State,
Local, and Indian Tribal ciovernments A- 122, - Cbst Principles for Non-
Profit Organizations," A-21, ' Principles for Educational Institu-
Community iDevelopment BloCk Grant Program Selecting Activities That Comply
M'aY.29. 2001 12:04PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
No-4472 P. 3/13
Purpose This chapter describes in some detail the many categories of activity
types which may be assisted using CDBG funds.. it also discusses a
number of activities that may not be so assisted. The chapter also
contains guidance on documenting compliance and making the best
choice for selecting the category to carryout an activity when more than
one may apply.
The purpose of the chapter is to help ensure that grantees will: (1) use
CDBG funds only for activities that fall wider an authorized category of
basic eligibility; (2) properly classify the activity; and P) provide adequate
documentation as required by the category it selects for each such
activity. The importance of using CDBG funds only for eligible activities
is self-evident. The proper classification of each assisted activity by one
of these categories of eligibility is also important because the statute and
regulations place specific requirements on particular categories and not
on others. 'For example, there is a statutory and regulatory limitation on
the amount of CDBG funds which may be used for activities assisted
under the category of Public Services, Some services that are assisted
under the program may also be eligible under a category other than
Public Services and, if properly classified by the grantee as such, would
therefore not be subject to the 1596 public service cap. There is also a
limitation on the amount of CDBG funds which may be used for activities
under the categories of Planning and capacity Building and Program
Administration. Likewise, there are other categories under which these
types of activities might also qualify and thus not be subject to that cap.
The statute and regulations also place special reqajrements on certain
categories of eligible activities, such as Code Enf6rcement and special
Economic Development Activities. An improperly classified activity may
be unnecessarily subject to additional program requirements. Con-
versely, an activity maybe carried out in a manner that does not meet the
requirements of the selected category but it might be eligible under the
requirements of another category not selected by the grantee for that
activity.
71 community Development Block Grant Program Categories of F_liglbleActMties ;.1 -
May-29, 2001 12 :04PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No-4472 P. 4/13.
Activity
Categories
This chapter describes separately each category of basic eligibility under
the program, in the following order.
CATEGOIUES OF ELIGIBLE AGTI ITIES 'AGE
Acquisition of Meal Property - , ............................2 -3
✓ Disposition ................. ................. ..............
.2 -9
✓ Public Facilities and Improvements.. .........•••.•••...... 2-11
Clearance ...................... , —.1.1 .. ......... 1
2-18
Public Services .... .............. ......... . ...........
.......... 2 -22
Intermit Assistance ........
2 -29
relocation.............. ........... ......... . ............
....... 2 -33
Loss of rental Income .....
.2--35
Privately -owned Utilities .
_ ...2 -36
Rehabilitation ......... .................. ............. ........
.. ... 2 -38
Construction of Housing .... ........... ........ •• •.... •
, ....... 2 -47
Code Enforcement .................. ...............................
..2 -51
✓' Special Economic Development Activities ...........
....2-55
MicroenterpriseAssistance ........... ....... 1 . ...........••.
- -2 63
Special Activities by CBDQs ........._..,,..........._ ..._
........2 -66
Homeownership Assistance ...,...... .................
.. ' ' .2 - 73
Planning and Capacity Building ................................
. .... 2 -75
Program Administration Costs ........... ...........
, ., .......2 -77
Miscellaneous other Activities..... .............. .................
2 -82
This chapter also discusses activities that are specifically ineligible and
further covers ways of documenting compliance with the activity se-
lected and how grantees can make the best choices, given the available
options.
2 -Z 0 Gategozjes of Eligible Activities community Development sloctc Grant Program
M 2001 12 :04PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
• •
No-4472 P. 5/13
Eligible Under this category, CDBG funds may be used to pay costs incidental to
Activities disposing of real property acquired with CDBG funds, including its
disposition at less than fair market value, provided the property will be
used to meet a national objective of the CDBG program.
The property may be disposed of through:
✓ Sale,
✓ Lease,
✓ Donation, or
✓ Otherwise.
Objectives—
D isposition NAM
CDBG funds may also be used under this category to pay reasonable
costs of temporarily managing such property {or property acquired with
Urban Renewal funds} until final disposition of the property is made,
R14rence:.9 70.,201 (b) .
Caveat. Because this category only authorizes the costs of tem poradly
managing property pending its disposition, care should be taken to avoid
spending CDBG funds to manage properties forwhich there are no plans
for disposition in the near future orwhere the market is such that it is not
likely to be sold in the near future, such as properties acquired many
years ago under the Urban , Renewal program.
For disposition costs to be eligible, the use of the CDBG- acquired
property after disposition must meet a national objective of the CDBG
program. When property is disposed of for the same purpose as that for
which itwas acquired, the costs of dispositionwill be considered to meet
community Development Block Grant Program Categories of Eligible ,A,ctWities * 2 -9
MaY-29- 2001 12:05PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No•4472 P, 6/13
the same national objective ascribed to the CDBG funds spent on its
acquisition. For examples on how such acquired property may meet a
national objective, see the charts on National objective-5—Acquisition of
Real Property on pages 2-6 through 2-8
Ifthe property is being disposed offor a purpose other than that forwhich
it was acquired, the new activity must be reviewed to determine whether
a national objective will be met bythe new use- seethe discussion in the
preceding section on Acquisition of Real Property on page 2-4 for more
details. Property acquired with CDBG funds may be used for purposes
that do not meet a national objective, but onlyunder conditions specified
under §5 70.503(b) (8) and §570.505.
Additional Gross proceeds fromthe disposition of real property acquiredwith CDBG
Considerations funds that are received by the grantee or a subrecipient are program
i income. References. §570.201(b) and §570 500(a)(1)
2-1 o o categories of Eligible Activities community E)evelopment Block Grant Program
d
C
v.
d
Q
�
a
rt
�a
0
b
n
w
rt
It
a
US
s:
E
NA TIONAL IV -- PUBL
FACILITIES AND MPRO
Objective
Qualifies If
Example
Additional Information
LIM Income
The public facility or improvement will be
Paving of gravel streets and the
For more information,
Area Benefit
used for a purpose the benefits of which
installation of curbs, gutters, and
see page 3 -7.
are available to all the residents in a
sidewalks in a predominantly L/M
particular area that is primarily residen-
income neighborhood.
tial, and at least 51% of those residents
(or less if grantee qualifies to use the
exception rule) are LX income persons:
UM Income
The public facility or improvement will be
Rehabilitation of a building to be
For more information,
Limited
used for an activity designed to benefit a
used as a center for training severely
see page 3-14,
Clientele
particular group of persons at least 51 %
disabled persons to enable them to
of whom are IJM income persons:
live independently,
IJM income
The public facility or improvement exclu-
Site improvements on publicly-
For more information,
Housing
sively assists in the provision of housing
owned land to serve a new apart-
see page 3-19.
to be occupied by QM income persons.
ment structure to be rented to UM
income households at affordable
rents.
N
0
0
N
O
G7�
_
m
z
z
z
z
z
m
C
m
m
0
m
z
z
0
N
&_7]
W
N
all
`
n
00
0
ca
a
M
cr
s
4i
c
0
b
0
w
NATIONALOBJECTIVES - PUBLIC FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS
UM Income
jobs
Qualifies If
The provision of a particular public
improvement needed by one or more
businesses to allow creation or reten-
tion of jobs, primarily for UM income
persons, x
Rebuilding a public road adjacent to
a factory to allow larger and heavier
trucks access to the facility, deter-
mined to be necessary for plant
expansion and the creation of new
jobs, where the business agrees to
fill 51% of the jobs with LJM income
persons *
Additional Information
Slum or
Blighted Area
The public facilities and improvements
are located in a designated slum or
blighted area and are designed to
address one or more conditions which
contributed to the deterioration of the
area.
For more information,
see page 3 -24
Reconstruction of a deteriorated For more information,
public park located in an area see page 3 -35
designated by the grantee as slum or
blighted pursuant to CDBG rules..
* In certain cases, the area served by a public improvement that enables a business to create or retain jobs may also include other
properties (e.g., bringing new water or sewer service to a fringe area of a community that will not only help a business to locate
there but that also will bring that new waterfsewer service to houses that are located in that area).. When, overall, the properties
served by the public improvement are primarily residential, the benefits to the residents must also be considered. Therefore, the
assisted public improvement in such a case must not only meet the LIM Income Benefit based on theJobs criteria but must also
meet the Area Benefit criteria. Reference. §570 (3)
(See also the discussion on page 3 -27 of this Guide concerning the case where more than one business may create or retain jobs as
a result of a public improvement)
�1_1--
N
GG
O
W
0
CD
-n
m
z
z
r
z
z
z
0
m
m
0
m
z
z
0
N
-o
Co
Kay.29, 2001 12:06PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
No-4472 P. 9/13
-
Special Economic 1
0 - - - o'
Development Activities
Preft The purpose of this pre-face is to distinguish the concept of "economic
development" from the term "special economic development
activities" as used in the CDBG program "Economic development"
is generally thought of in two ways within the context of CDBG activities:
the very broad concept of the term as distinguished from "special
economic development activities" as that term is used at 24 CFR
570-203.
-]Economic development" can be interpreted very broadly to include
all endeavors aimed at sustaining or increasing the level of business
activity. Linder this broad concept, most CDBG activities could, under the
right circumstances, be, viewed as economic development. For example,
the level of business activity in a jurisdiction could be helped through
development of a community economic development plan, improve-
ments to the public infrastructure, through better housing, or an en-
hanced level of public services.
When the Consolidated Plan regulations were published in January 1995,
the term "expanded economic opportunities" was defined at 24 CFR91-1
(a)(1)(iii) as including:
"...job creation and retention; establishment, stabilization and
expansion of small businesses (including microbusinesses); the
provision of public services concerned with employment; the
provision of jobs involved in carrying out activities under pro-
grams covered by this plan to low-income persons in areas
affected by those programs and activities; availability of mort-
gage financing for low-income persons at reasonable rates using
nondiscriminatory lending practices, access to capital and credit
development activities that promote the long-term economic
and social viability of the community, and empowerment and
self-sufficiency opportunities for low-income persons to reduce
generational poverty in federally assisted and public housing -
This was a very broad statement of purpose for Consolidated Plan goal-
setting purposes and was designed, in part, to cover what is the primary
objective of the CDBG program (section 101(c) of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974 as amended).
COTMUlity Development Block Grant Program categories of Eligible Activities + 255
MaY.29. 2001 12:06PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No.4472 P. 10113
in contrast the term "special econ development activities" is AML
used in the CDBG program to identify three types of activities described
below and at §670.203(a), (b), and (c) of the regulations,
As a consequence of changes to the CDBG program legislation in 1992,
significant alterations were made to the program regulations to facilitate
the use of CDBG funds for economic development purposes, both in
terms of eligibility and national objectives. The resultant flexibility has
sprinkled activities often considered as more directly linked to "special
economic development activities," such as microenterprise assistance
and technical assistance to nonprofits to build economic development
capacity, more broadly throughout the eligible activities in the regula-
tions (subpart C), thus removing them from the requirements specific to
funding activities under §670 203.
An economic development . project in the CDBG program may be sup-
ported by a range of CDBG - funded activities, including both special
economic development activities and other categories ofbasic eligibility,
each of which must meet a national objective of the CDBG program
Eligible CDBG funds may be used for the following special economic devel-
Activities opz>i1►'ent activities:
Commercial or industrial improvements carried out by the
grantee or a nonprofit subredpxent, including.
• acquisition,
• construction,
• rehabilitation,
• reconstruction, or
• installation of commercial or industrial buildings or struc-
tures and other related real property equipment and im-
provements,
•• .Assistance to private for -profit entities for an activity deter-
mined by the grantee to be appropriate to carry out an economic
development project. This assistance may include, but is not
limited to.
± grants;
• loans;
• loan guarantees;
• interest supplements;
• technical assistance; or
• any other form except for those described as ineligible in
§570 207(a), such as political activities IF
2 -56 '� categories of Eligible Activities community Development Block Grant Program
Vay.29. 2001 12:07PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
No•4472 P. 11/13
kk lender this type of assistance, the grantee shall minimize, to the
extent practical, displacement of existing businesses and jobs in
neighborhoods.
•: Economic development services in connection with the above-
subcategories, including outreach efforts to market available
forms of assistance, screening of applicants, reviewing and
underwriting applications for assistance, preparation of agree-
ments, management of assisted activities, and the screening,
referral, and placement of applicants for employment opportuni-
ties generated by CDBG- eligible econornic development activi-
ties, The costs of providing necessary job training for persons
filling those positions may also be provided.
r,
Reference, ,§570 203(al, (b) and (c)
Public,Benefzt, The previous requirement that certain Special Economic
Development Activities meet a particular kind of financial analysis
(known as the "appropriate" determination) has been replaced with a
requirement that the level of public benefit to be derived from the activity
must be appropriate given the amount of CDBG assistance being pro-
vided. This requirement, which is found at §570.209 and is further
discussed in Appendix B of this Guide, applies to all activities under the
category of Special Economic Development ,A,ctivitiesat§570.203. Grant-
ees are still expected to perform due diligence through financial under -
writi ofany assistance being provided to a for -profit business and HUD
has provided some guidelines which a grantee may use for this purpose.
It isimportatit to rote, .however, that gran tees are notrequired to use the
HUD-supplied undezwrztinggiridelines.
Community Development Block Grant Program Categories of Eligible Activities o 2-57
May-29, 2001 12:08PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT No.4472 P. 12/1'�
Special economic developmen t activities do not include
4o Assistance to a for-profit business in the form oflobbying or other
political activities. Reference. §570-207(a)(3)
4- Public facilities and improvements carried out to support or
benefit a private for-profit business (These activities may,
however, be eligible under the category of Public Facilities and
Improvements.) Reference. §570.201(c)
4- New Housing Construction. This activity may be eligible under
either of the categories of construction of Housing or special
Activities by CBDOs. When a project to be assisted includes new
construction of housing as part of a commercial structure (e.g.,
a "mixed use" project), those costs clearly attributable to the
commercial portion of the project may be eligible as a special
economic development activity, References. §570.201(in)ana,§670.204
Planning for economic development projects, including con-
ducting market surveys to determine an appropriate type of
business t attempt to attract to a particular area, developing
individual commercial or industrial project plans, and identifying JIML
actions to implement those plans, such planning activities may
be eligible, under the category of Planning and Capacity Building.
Refe= cc. §570.205
Job training, unless part of a CDBG-eligible- economic develop-
ment activity that will create or retain permanent jobs, Such
other training may be eligible under the categories of Public
Services or special Activities by CBDOs. References. §570.20J(e)and
,§570.204
Section i 05(c) (1) of the authorizing statute specifies certain limitations
on how activities under the category of Special Fconomic Development
Activities may meet the national objective of benefit to UM income
persons. These limitations are reflected in the charts that follow which
show how activities in this ca t eg ory may meet the CDBG national
objectives.
E
Categories of Eligible Activities Community Development Block Grant Program
May,29. 2001 12:08PM HENN CTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
No.4472 P. 13/13
Additional Grantees should take special precautions in the use of the category of
Considerations Special Economic Development Activities, particularly when providing
assistance to a for-profit business. First, it should be evident that all
business activity involves more than the average amount of risk and it is
possible that the contemplated results will not materialize.. It should also
be noted that businesses may be expected to be focusing heavily on their
own interests and it should not be surprising if they show little interest
in the fulfillment of the community's goals and objectives or in the
particular requirements of the CDBG program, Grantees must therefore
maintain proper documentation in the activity files and offer technical
assistance to avoid program non-compliance. Ultimately, grantees
should take special care to protect the community's interests in their
dealings with those entities that work in the economic development
sphere.
if the grantee or a subrecipient makes a number of loans for economic
development, it will be important that appropriate steps be taken to
manage the loan portfolio. Some guidance and advice concerning this
matter may be found in Appendix G.
COMMUrlity Development Block Grant Program Categories of Eligible Activities -.** 2-59
mul-ammimpilval
'J*VOMPAY"�(-
NORTHEAST CORNER LOT 1
"N to ,�Y/
<
0 j w E X C E P T'( 0 N 40 1 40
N 89*02' 00" W 300.11;
It )
6 a) i LmLrTy AND DRAINAGE C
....•. cn 8 EASEMEWT 7� Z, • . 5 Mg. 2 7 .... L -1
N 89*3421
---------- - - - - r - - - - 20 L -1
LrTY AND DRAMGE - -7
EASEMENT 720; o I
to
to I
iff a Uw 40 40
LL-
DLV 1%
A
L6 LLI
0
Lr) -
i I 7 < 4
1A I;z LL-1
kr)
;D
Go
C-4
LL-I
NI
z
Z ,
C LL-1
7 -,;- I
NORTH LINE OF LOT 2 120
BLOCK 3 EXTENDED EASTI I
10— UnUTY AND DRAINAGE
- - - UTILITY AUDDRAINAGE lo L
r- - EASEMENT -11 I - EASEMENT
) 7
3t LLJ
. -J - 1 0 t '" 89 °01' 33" E 300.05•
I
0 Ui
----------- - - - - - - - - - - -
0. 40 40
T,
> C) - S 89001
'59- E
299.86
9
-D 3
J9
U) C �
r n 80
1,
r I
70
11k
N4J Al
A I r 11
p
I ts
I
----------- ......
.4i
r s
N [!V
......... c . . .. i —cv—
------...... . . ......
-- — ------ ----L—j
-- --
.............
k
Z
CO
w
ce
Li:
0 Lij
u o
Z
CL
D if - - --
.�� .. -
L
0
>-
C
e
cr
7
Z
-----------
sit!
01
J391 nx
11k
N4J Al
A I r 11
p
I ts
I
----------- ......
.4i
r s
N [!V
......... c . . .. i —cv—
------...... . . ......
-- — ------ ----L—j
-- --
.............
k
Z
CO
w
ce
Li:
0 Lij
u o
Z
CL
D if - - --
.�� .. -
L
0
>-
C
e
cr
7
Z
-----------
01
Li
-�
L)
�
Z
' �f
' I
11k
N4J Al
A I r 11
p
I ts
I
----------- ......
.4i
r s
N [!V
......... c . . .. i —cv—
------...... . . ......
-- — ------ ----L—j
-- --
.............
k
40
WO
� g
0 6
p4l
ki I
NORTHEAST CORNER LOT 1
i .9 ,
�b.
N� EXCEPTION 4o 40�
N 89 00 300.11
_
ch
so t• U ND TILITY A DftAA"E l.i— �-• I — •.
i
509 .2 ... 1 y EASEMENT
- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- �� �. LJ
20 , 49S--
� I I
I i LU
p i i 40 . 40 I L
LLJ
LOI
� �
LLi
in
I In 1 i
N I I� I LU
( I� I
L —J _:t
S I LLI fi
NORTH LNVE OF LOT 2 i 1 ^ ` -
- BL' 3 EXTENDED EASTI It
UTTUTY
UT AND DRAINAGE
ILITY AYDDRAINAGE i of # L Lr
EASEMENT h Ir EASEMENT
�
/, ► 4I 33 F 300.05
. 1 1l • ----- I
B 0
00 :� i.. i i `, i" 40
E 299.8
99.86
38,? a
., ► e .� a''
off; S ,p i r
IN
Cc
an
si
f
lb
es
tc
th
i
St
Cc
be
$i
i
St
Cc
be
POWER
LOCK
� E
I
t +
I
BITUMINOUS
TELEPHONE
RISER
— W Cyclonf Fonco I t
1 +
{ I
, I �
b
wK
i I
I i
I +
! I
1
•0
�'R ?�`� OVERHEAD i
POLE WIRES — T
♦ 1
♦, t
PROPOSED UTILITY AND
DRAINAGE EASEMENT I
i
i
t
i t
i +
t,
t
,
i
POWER
POLE ►'
i
1
t
r
•
I
, !
' } h
, I .
f ! r POWERI
i i { POLE 1
• ,— I i i i
i t I
I i 1
.IMPS ON
SLAND
I $+ I
1
UEL ' 1
i I 1
1 i t
i i 1
+ ' THE NORTH UNE OF LOT '2 i
_ _r I ,�✓'� BLOCK 3 EXTENDED EAST _
T
W) POlE
1 1 t
I t `' GUY t
A i i POWER ?J i
r ' I - P9Lf---- - - - - -- a -------- --- - - - - --
•
L
40
I
if
40 1 40
•
is
i
OVERHEAD WIRES i
ON UNE
L o
I ! " _ EDGE OF BITUMMlOUS AM � A
.. - - - - - - - - - - _.J
>0m
3)z
0
zmz
m CO
-4-4
M
c mn
C fz F 0
PO -< one
c
ci = "=
/ o �
g Z —*�- -- 0/ / \
oO V
\ • � 'z
o
Z
na
/ C 01
Imca
O \\�
l
i
m
CD
co
-
. ..........
..- ........ ......_ i
..
C O
N
4 , t
-n Zdo 1
vnza \
t - toQ � •�
...,... tc', y �—"� Ozi nab
r
mor
r -M4 WOO
y : tm D
Y D
Z3)1 1
iw e Jo
...........
r
I
fm
/ Y 10
I S
2z0
« z
Oz p
—
-
' v
Im (� 1 i
N
Qo
._.... -.. .- ...... .... .. ...... _.. - - - -- _- -. -
---- .- .- --
. .:. :................ - - - - -- .__.. -- ,- - - - - -' -.. .
-- --...,,... i ........_.......... "-- . -.. -_. -.. _._...._._
-...__
- - - -_ - -_ _ --,- -
xy mm Boone Avenue North
Z z
n v n
mz Z mz
za 'm o0
m v a
DO r DO
— zm co zm
0--4 m C)
m m
NEW HOPE, MINNESOTA t„
PUBLIC WORKS STORM WATER IMPROVEMENTS ® Ro"ne
a9.9
Anderlik 8
SITE PLAN "Asaociates
CITY PROJECT No.
r. M
----------------
------------
Cr)
--- - ------ -
i
-At-
CC)
d °'' � I � E i I� « co
)L
''�:. i�i'i s
X,Z0 31VC
a1vo
11
- - - - --_________
..
S3 01,
S3unun 133106d
------------------------------- - -----
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
------------------- — ----
dOl 4 'C
10 junoLuo of
3'1VAkS
allOd OIL
- X3 30Y
r. M
----------------
------------
Cr)
--- - ------ -
i
-At-
CC)
d °'' � I � E i I� « co
)L
''�:. i�i'i s
X,Z0 31VC
a1vo
11
- - - - --_________
..
S3 01,
S3unun 133106d
------------------------------- - -----
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
------------------- — ----
dOl 4 'C
10 junoLuo of
T-67!
, U ��on Acl�-'Y
f P ro p erty . . . . . . . . . . .
--- -------- - --
- ---------------
------- ---------
S6 REINS fA L
%
CHAIN %, t
N CE
SAWCUT BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
(125 S.Y.)
gMn BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
(85 S,Y-)
REMOVE Ex. 2-1/2' LINE AS
REQUIRED TO INSTALL NEW
WATER LINE.
- I , 3
�j
i
- .n:
-3 F
ABANDON
AaANDON E)L'
STORM SEWER
PANG
CLEAR AND GRUB —
ALL TREES AND BRUSH
ji
,--CLEAR AND GRUB
TREE
. ff - mm
CHAIN LINK FENCE AND CURB & GUTTER
FOR NEW 12' GATE.
CLEAR AND GRUB -- ------- - ------
TREES . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
CLEAR AND GRU.
TREES .. . . . . . . . . . .
REMOVE
10 LF. CURB AND GUTTER
REMOVE Ex.
SILT FENCE
IN AREAS OF FILL I . . . . . . . .
(INCIDENTAL)
MNI
rte', + .'im'