HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 06.r
Date: Item No.
RESOLUTION APPROVING FEASIBILTY REPORT, ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS
AND DECLARING INTENT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM
THE PROCEEDS OF BONDS FOR 222nd STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Proposed Action
Staff recommends adoption of the following motion: Move to approve a resolution approving
the feasibility report, ordering improvements and declaring the City’s intent to reimburse certain
expenditures from the proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City for the 222nd Street
Improvement Project, City Project No. 17-07.
Overview
At its April 3, 2017 meeting, the City Council approved a preliminary plat named Launch Park
First Addition (plat). In conjunction with the plat, Launch Properties (Developer), on behalf of
Hat Trick Investments (property owner), submitted a petition requesting the City construct the
public improvements (222nd Street Improvements) required to support the plat and assess 100%
of the costs to them. An engineering feasibility report has been completed. The estimated cost
for the 222nd Street Improvement Project (City Project 17-07) is $1,766,477. The project includes
the construction of 222nd Street, turn lanes on Cedar Avenue and public utilities. The City
intends to finance City Project 17-07 through the issuance of 429 bonds.
The Internal Revenue Service issued Treasury Reg. 1.150-2 which provides that proceeds of tax-
exempt bonds used to reimburse prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain
requirements are met. To meet these requirements, the City declares its intent to bond for
certain projects. The resolution reflects the anticipated issuance of bonds as a funding source.
Primary Issues to Consider
• Approval of the resolution only approves the City’s intent to bond. It doesn’t approve the
sale of bonds. This declaration does not obligate the City to issue bonds for this project.
• A 2/3 vote of the City Council is required to dispense with statutory requirement for
Planning Commission review.
Supporting Information
• 222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project Feasibility Report
Financial Impact: $ Budgeted: Y☒ N☐ Source:
Related Documents: (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Envision Lakeville Community Values: Good Value for Public Services
Report Completed by: Zach Johnson, City Engineer
April 17, 2017
1,766,477 Multiple
CITY OF LAKEVILLE
RESOLUTION NO. 17-__
RESOLUTION APPROVING FEASIBILTY REPORT, ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND
DECLARING INTENT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM THE PROCEEDS
OF BONDS FOR 222nd STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, on April 17, 2017, the City Council approved a resolution accepting a petition from
Launch Properties, LLC on behalf of Hat Trick Investments, LLC requesting that the City
construct and finance the public improvements associated with the Launch Park First Addition
development project and be assessed for the entire cost of the improvements;
WHEREAS, The Internal Revenue Service has issued Treasury Reg. 1.150-2 (the
“Reimbursement Regulations”) providing that proceeds of tax-exempt bonds used to reimburse
prior expenditures will not be deemed spent unless certain requirements are met; and
WHEREAS, The City expects to incur certain expenditures that may be financed temporarily
from sources other than bonds, and later reimbursed from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds;
and
WHEREAS, The City has determined to make this declaration of official intent (“Declaration”)
to reimburse certain costs from proceeds of bonds in accordance with the Reimbursement
regulations; and
WHEREAS, The total estimated general obligation bonds to be issued for this project are
$1,766,477.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Lakeville,
Minnesota:
1. The 222nd Street and Utility Improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as
detailed in the feasibility report.
2. The 222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project is hereby ordered as identified in the
Feasibility Report for Project 17-07, dated April 17, 2017.
3. Such improvement has no relation to the comprehensive municipal plan.
4. Staff is hereby authorized to prepare plans and specifications for the making of such
improvements.
5. The City reasonably expects to reimburse the expenditures made for the entire cost of the
project from the proceeds of bonds in an estimated maximum principal amount of
$1,766,477. All reimbursed expenditures will be capital expenditures, costs of issuance of
the bonds, or other expenditures eligible for reimbursement under Section 1.150-2(d)(3)
of the Reimbursement Regulations.
6. This Declaration has been made no later than 60 days after payment of any original
expenditure to be subject to a reimbursement allocation with respect to the proceeds of
bonds, except for the following expenditures: a) costs of issuance of bonds; b) costs in an
amount not in excess of $100,000 or five percent of the proceeds of an issue; or c)
“preliminary expenditures” up to an amount not in excess of 20 percent of the aggregate
issue price of the issue or issues that are reasonably expected by the City to finance the
project for which the preliminary expenditures were incurred. The term preliminary
expenditures” includes architectural, engineering, surveying, bond issuance, and similar
costs that are incurred prior to commencement of acquisition, construction or
rehabilitation of a project, other than land acquisition, site preparation, and similar costs
incident to commencement of construction.
7. This Declaration is an expression of the reasonable expectations of the City based on the
facts and circumstances known to the City as the date hereof. The anticipated original
expenditures for the Project and the principal amount of the bonds described in
paragraph 3 are consistent with the City’s budgetary and financial circumstances. No
sources other than proceeds of bonds to be issued by the City are, or are reasonably
expected to be, reserved, allocated on a long term basis, or otherwise set aside pursuant to
the City’s budget or financial policies to pay such Project expenditures.
8. This Declaration is intended to constitute a declaration of the official intent for the
purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Lakeville City Council this 17th day of April, 2017.
______________________________
Douglas P. Anderson, Mayor
_________________________________
Charlene Friedges, City Clerk
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
FEASIBILITY REPORT
222nd STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CITY PROJECT NO. 17-07
APRIL 17, 2017
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE SHEET
CERTIFICATION SHEET
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................1
2. 222ND STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ...................................2
2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................2
2.1.1 Authorization ...............................................................................................2
2.1.2 Scope ............................................................................................................2
2.1.3 Data Available .............................................................................................2
2.2 General Background ................................................................................................2
2.2.1 Project Location ...........................................................................................2
2.3 Existing Conditions ..................................................................................................2
2.3.1 Project Site Conditions ................................................................................2
2.3.2 Storm Sewer .................................................................................................3
2.3.3 Watermain ....................................................................................................3
2.3.4 Sanitary Sewer .............................................................................................3
2.3.5 Wetlands ......................................................................................................4
2.4 Proposed Improvements...........................................................................................4
2.4.1 Roadway Surface .........................................................................................4
2.4.2 Storm Sewer .................................................................................................4
2.4.3 Watermain Improvements ............................................................................5
2.4.4 Sanitary Sewer Improvements .....................................................................5
2.4.7 Permits/Approvals........................................................................................5
2.4.8 Construction Access/Staging .......................................................................5
2.4.9 Plat Approvals and Schedule .......................................................................6
3. FINANCING ......................................................................................................................7
3.1 Opinion of Probable Cost.........................................................................................7
3.2 Funding ....................................................................................................................7
4. PROJECT SCHEDULE ....................................................................................................8
5. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION ................................................................9
Appendix A
Location Map
Appendix B
Project Overview Map
Appendix C
Opinion of Probable Cost
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Appendix D
Assessment Map ID
Preliminary Assessment Roll
Appendix E
2017 Geotechnical Report – Log of Test Borings
Appendix F
Launch Park First Addition – Final Plat
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
Page 1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The 222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project, City Project No. 17-07, was initiated by
Launch Properties who is developing an industrial zoned property south of the City project area.
The site is 44.56 acres, known as Launch Park First Addition. The development includes the
construction of a 280,000 sf warehouse/office building, parking lot, private utilities and private
stormwater management basins. The improvements to be constructed with City Project 17-07
will provide public street and utility service to the proposed development.
The 222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project includes the construction of 222nd Street from
Cedar Avenue to approximately 1,360 feet to the east. 222nd Street is proposed to be a 40-foot-
wide rural paved section within an 80-foot right-of-way. Dedicated right and left turn lanes will
be constructed along Cedar Avenue at the 222nd Street intersection. Utility improvements
include the construction of storm sewer, sanitary sewer and watermain.
The property owner has submitted a petition to the City Council to construct the improvements
consistent with State Statutes and has agreed to be assessed for the entire cost of the
improvements for the 222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project.
Proposed utility improvements include the following:
Construction of storm sewer across 222nd Street, and a ditch culvert north of the street.
The extension of public sanitary sewer from the Metropolitan Council of Environmental
Services (MCES) interceptor to the site along the east property boundary and 222nd
Street right-of-way.
The extension of watermain to the site and along the proposed 222nd Street from an
existing stub along Cedar Avenue, north of the site.
The total estimated project cost for the 222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project is
$1,766,477.00 which includes a 10% contingency and 28% indirect costs for legal, engineering,
administrative, and financing costs. A bond issuance cost of 2% of the total project costs is
projected including indirect costs and contingency. The project is proposed to be funded through
a Special Assessment to benefit the property owner.
The project is proposed to be substantially completed in 2017, including restoration items. The
project is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint and should be
constructed as proposed herein.
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
Page 2
2. 222ND STREET AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
2.1 Introduction
2.1.1 Authorization
Per Minnesota State Statue, 429.031 Preliminary Plans, Hearings Subdivision 3, the City
Council may adopt a resolution to assess the entire improvement cost to the owners
without a public hearing if all owners have petitioned to the council. In this case, there is
one owner who is being assessed the entirety of the project. The owner has petitioned to
the City Council by letter on April 5, 2017 for the improvements.
2.1.2 Scope
This report investigates the feasibility of proposed street and utility improvements
identified herein. The 222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project was initially
considered because of the owner’s desire to develop the property.
Improvements outlined within this report include the construction of a 40-foot-wide rural
roadway, storm sewer, sanitary sewer, and watermain.
2.1.3 Data Available
Information and materials used in the preparation of this report include the following:
• Record Plans
• Geotechnical Evaluation Report, Braun Intertec, dated January 11, 2017
• Utility Record Drawings
• Launch Park First Addition Preliminary and Final Plat Plans
2.2 General Background
2.2.1 Project Location
The proposed development is located east of and adjacent to Cedar Avenue (CSAH 23),
south of land owned by Airlake Development Inc., west of the Lakeville corporate limits,
and north of the Lakeville corporate limits and land owned by Metropolitan Airport
Commission for the Airlake Airport. The project area is shown within Appendix A of this
report.
2.3 Existing Conditions
2.3.1 Project Site Conditions
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
Page 3
The site is undeveloped cultivated agricultural land. The land generally slopes from the
southwest to northeast. Wetlands have been identified on the site.
Photo of project site looking east from Cedar Avenue. Photo from Google Maps dated
July, 2016.
Geotechnical soil borings were completed during the winter of 2017, to determine the
existing conditions. A copy of the geotechnical soil boring logs may be found in
Appendix E of this report.
2.3.2 Storm Sewer
There are no existing storm sewer facilities on site.
2.3.3 Watermain
Existing watermain, 12-inch ductile iron pipe (DIP), is located north of the site along
Cedar Avenue. The water utilities along Cedar Avenue were installed in the late 1980’s.
Maintenance records indicate there have been zero recorded water main break along
Cedar Avenue south of 215th St since the watermain was installed.
2.3.4 Sanitary Sewer
The MCES has an existing 24-inch gravity sewer interceptor line that runs to the north of
the project. This sewer was installed in 2009, and is known as the Elko/New Market
Interceptor.
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
Page 4
2.3.5 Wetlands
The wetland delineation for the site was conducted on 10/05/16 by Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc. A field investigation took place on 10/12/16. Two wetland areas were
identified within the project boundaries.
Based on the information provided in the report dated January 2017 and site visit,
Wetland Ditch A (0.6 acres) and Wetland 1 (0.10 acres) both have been determined to be
acceptable for use in implementing the Wetland Conservation Act. Only wetlands within
the project boundary are part of this decision. No comments on the wetland
delineation/no-loss were received during the comment period. The wetland delineation
and No-loss was approved on April 5, 2017. It is the Developer’s responsibility to obtain
proper wetland approvals from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2.4 Proposed Improvements
2.4.1 Roadway Surface
The construction of the rural roadway, 222nd Street, will consist of two 20-foot wide
lanes with 2-foot gravel shoulders. A temporary cul-de-sac on 222nd Street is planned
within a temporary easement.
Based on geotechnical recommendations, it is proposed that 222nd Street consist of the
following minimum section: 2.5-inches of bituminous wearing course, 3-inches of
bituminous base course, and 10-inches of aggregate base over an approved subgrade. The
shoulder will consist of the following minimum section: 5-inches of Class 2 aggregate,
10-inches of Class 5 aggregate base over compacted subgrade.
The project includes the construction of dedicated left and right turn lanes on Cedar
Avenue at the 222nd Street intersection. The City will coordinate with Dakota County for
the improvements within the County right-of-way. The plan for any County road
improvements must be approved by Dakota County, and a permit for the work within the
right-of-way must be obtained from the County.
2.4.2 Storm Sewer
Storm sewer and drainage facilities to support the 222nd Street and Utility Improvement
Project area are comprised of ditch culverts, storm sewer pipe, and a roadway ditch
system.
Runoff from the northern portion of proposed 222nd Street will be collected by the
proposed roadway ditch to the north of the street. The stormwater is then conveyed via
storm pipes, and ditches, eastward and eventually to an existing creek to the north. The
runoff from the southern portion of proposed 222nd Street is collected and treated via
privately-owned and maintained storm sewer facilities of the proposed development
south of 222nd Street.
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
Page 5
2.4.3 Watermain Improvements
The proposed 12-inch watermain will be extended to the site and along the proposed
222nd Street from an existing stub along Cedar Avenue, north of the site. The watermain
will be located within Dakota County right-of-way and drainage and utility easements,
east of Cedar Avenue.
2.4.4 Sanitary Sewer Improvements
The proposed sanitary sewer will be extended from the MCES interceptor to the site
along the east property boundary and along 222nd Street. The proposed sanitary sewer
consists of 8-inch polyvinylchloride (PVC) pipe.
2.4.7 Permits/Approvals
The 222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project will require the following permits: A
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, a Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Sewer Extension permit, a Department of Health
(DOH) permit for public watermains, and a Dakota County Right-of-Way Permit.
2.4.8 Construction Access/Staging
Construction Access to the project will be from Cedar Avenue at the 222nd Street
intersection. The City will be responsible for coordinating access to Cedar Avenue with
Dakota County.
The contractor will be responsible for providing access to the site throughout the project.
Construction will take place under traffic.
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
Page 6
2.4.9 Plat Approvals and Schedule
The plat approvals for the Launch Park First Addition Development Project has occurred
as follows:
Dakota County Preliminary Plat Approval ........................................ February 21, 2017
Planning Commission Preliminary Plat Approval ................................. March 16, 2017
City Council Preliminary Plat Approval .................................................... April 3, 2017
City Council Final Plat Approval ............................................................... May 1, 2017
A copy of the Launch Park First Addition final plat may be found in Appendix F of this
report.
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
Page 7
3. FINANCING
3.1 Opinion of Probable Cost
The detailed opinion of probable cost for the project can be found in Appendix C of this report.
The opinion of cost incorporates estimated 2017 construction costs and include a 10%
contingency factor. Indirect costs are projected at 28% of the construction cost and include
engineering, legal, financing, and administrative costs. A bond issuance cost of 2% of the total
project costs is projected including indirect costs and contingency.
Table 2 below provides a summary of the opinions of probable cost for the 222nd Street and Utility
Improvement Project.
Table 2 – 222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
Summary of Cost
Schedule Amount
Schedule A – Cedar Avenue Improvements $153,216.00
Schedule B – 222nd Street Improvements $459,392.00
Schedule C – Storm Sewer Improvements $199,168.00
Schedule D – Sanitary Sewer Improvements $290,432.00
Schedule E – Watermain Improvements $629,632.00
TOTAL $1,731,840.00
Bond Issuance Cost $34,636.80
TOTAL $1,766,476.80
3.2 Funding
Financing for the 222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project will come from a Special
Assessment. The property owner has petitioned the City Council to construct the improvements
and be assessed for the entire cost of the project.
The proposed assessment roll is included in Appendix D of this report, along with an Assessment
Map ID highlighting the benefitting properties and the assessment calculations for benefitting
property owners.
Table 3 – 222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
Funding Summary
Funding Source Amount
Special Assessment $1,766,476.80
TOTAL $1,766,476.80
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
Page 8
4. PROJECT SCHEDULE
The proposed project schedule for the 222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project is as follows:
Accept Feasibility Report .............................................................................. April 17, 2017
Determine Petition for Improvements and Assessments ............................... April 17, 2017
Order Project/Declaration of Intent to Bond .................................................. April 17, 2017
Approval of Plans and Specifications/Authorize Ad for Bids .......................... May 1, 2017
Open Bids/Compute Assessment .................................................................... May 31, 2017
Adopt Proposed Assessment Agreement ........................................................ June 19, 2017
Award Construction Contract ......................................................................... June 19, 2017
Begin Construction ............................................................................................... June 2017
Substantial Completion .................................................................................... October 2017
Declare Costs/Set Assessment Hearing ........................................................... October 2017
Assessment Hearing ......................................................................................... October 2017
Certify Assessment to County ..................................................................... November 2017
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
Page 9
5. FEASIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATION
The 222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project includes roadway construction, and utility
improvements. Roadway construction consists of a 40-foot wide rural road with 2-foot gravel
shoulders to provide access to the proposed Launch Park First Addition development. Utility
improvements consist of watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer construction to provide
utility service to the proposed development.
The total estimated cost for the 222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project including roadway,
sanitary sewer, storm sewer and watermain improvements is $1,766,476.80. Proposed funding
for the project is provided through a Special Assessment.
This project is feasible, necessary, and cost-effective from an engineering standpoint. The
project feasibility is subject to financial review by the City. Based on the information contained
in this report, it is recommended to proceed with the improvements as outlined in this report.
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
APPENDIX A
Location Map
E U R E K A T O W N S H I P FARMINGTON215TH ST W
LAKEVILLE BLVD
GRENADA AVE220TH ST WHANOVER AVECEDAR AVEDakota County GIS
222nd Stree t &
Utilit y Improve me nt
0 500 1,000250Feet²
Municipal Boundary
Project Location
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
APPENDIX B
Project Overview Map
215TH ST W
220TH ST W CEDAR AVENUELAKEVILLE BLVD
A i r l a k eAirport
218TH ST WHANOVER AVEGLADE AVEGRENADA AVELAKEVILLE BLVD
Dakota County GIS
222nd Street and Utility Improvement ProjectProject Over view Map ²
0 500 1,000250Feet
Lakeville Municipal Boundary
Proposed Watermain
Proposed Sanitar y Sewer
Proposed 222nd Street
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
APPENDIX C
Opinion of Probable Cost
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - FEASIBILITY
Contract:C.P. 17-07
Owner:City of Lakeville
Project:222nd Street West Street and Utility Improvements
KHA Job No:160734009
Schedule:A
Description:CEDAR AVE
Item No.
Mn/DOT
No.Item Description Unit
Contract
Quantity Unit Price Amount
1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 0.2 65,000.00$ 13,000.00$
2 2102.502 PAVEMENT MARKING REMOVAL LIN FT 200 1.00$ 200.00$
3 2104.505 REMOVE BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SQ YD 1200 5.00$ 6,000.00$
4 2104.513 SAWING BIT PAVEMENT (FULL DEPTH)LIN FT 1230 2.50$ 3,075.00$
5 2106.501 EXCAVATION - COMMON CU YD 527 5.00$ 2,635.00$
6 2106.523 COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV)CU YD 162 7.00$ 1,134.00$
7 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 2 TON 118 18.00$ 2,124.00$
8 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 TON 900 15.00$ 13,500.00$
9 2360.501 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,B)TON 205 70.00$ 14,350.00$
10 2360.502 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (3,B)TON 515 65.00$ 33,475.00$
11 2563.601 TRAFFIC CONTROL LUMP SUM 1 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$
12 2564.531 SIGN PANELS TYPE C SQ FT 50 50.00$ 2,500.00$
13 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS LIN FT 1000 2.00$ 2,000.00$
14 2573.535 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LUMP SUM 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
15 2573.550 EROSION CONTROL SUPERVISOR LUMP SUM 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$
16 2575.501 SEEDING ACRE 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
17 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 POUND 59 6.00$ 354.00$
18 2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 1 TON 1 500.00$ 500.00$
19 2582.501 PAVEMENT MESSAGE PREFORM THERMOPLASTIC GROUND IN SQ FT 30 35.00$ 1,050.00$
20 2582.502 4" SOLID LINE EPOXY LIN FT 1120 1.00$ 1,120.00$
21 2582.502 8" DOTTED LINE EPOXY LIN FT 250 1.00$ 250.00$
Schedule A Base:108,767.00$
10% Contingency 10,900.00$
Schedule A Total:119,700.00$
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - FEASIBILITY
Contract:C.P. 17-07
Owner:City of Lakeville
Project:222nd Street West Street and Utility Improvements
KHA Job No:160734009
Schedule:B
Description:222ND STREET
Item No.
Mn/DOT
No.Item Description Unit
Contract
Quantity Unit Price Amount
1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 0.3 65,000.00$ 19,500.00$
2 2106.501 EXCAVATION - COMMON CU YD 7670 5.00$ 38,350.00$
3 2106.523 COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV)CU YD 13728 7.00$ 96,096.00$
4 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 2 TON 140 18.00$ 2,520.00$
5 2211.501 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 TON 3080 15.00$ 46,200.00$
6 2360.501 TYPE SP 12.5 WEARING COURSE MIX (3,B)TON 767 70.00$ 53,690.00$
7 2360.502 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (3,B)TON 767 65.00$ 49,855.00$
8 2564.531 SIGN PANELS TYPE C SQ FT 50 50.00$ 2,500.00$
9 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS LIN FT 1500 2.00$ 3,000.00$
10 2573.535 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION EXIT LUMP SUM 1 3,000.00$ 3,000.00$
11 2573.550 EROSION CONTROL SUPERVISOR LUMP SUM 1 2,500.00$ 2,500.00$
12 2575.501 SEEDING ACRE 2 1,000.00$ 2,000.00$
13 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 POUND 118 6.00$ 708.00$
14 2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 1 TON 4 500.00$ 2,000.00$
15 2582.502 4" SOLID LINE EPOXY LIN FT 2800 1.00$ 2,800.00$
16 2582.502 4" DOUBLE SOLID LINE EPOXY LIN FT 1400 1.00$ 1,400.00$
Schedule B Base:326,119.00$
10% Contingency 32,700.00$
Schedule B Total:358,900.00$
Schedule:C
Description:STORM
Item No.
Mn/DOT
No.Item Description Unit
Contract
Quantity Unit Price Amount
1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 0.1 65,000.00$ 6,500.00$
2 2106.501 EXCAVATION - COMMON CU YD 15495 5.00$ 77,475.00$
3 2106.523 COMMON EMBANKMENT (CV)CU YD 1130 7.00$ 7,910.00$
4 2501.516 12" RC PIPE APRON EACH 7 750.00$ 5,250.00$
5 2501.516 24" RC PIPE APRON EACH 1 750.00$ 750.00$
6 2503.542 12" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LIN FT 588 45.00$ 26,460.00$
7 2503.542 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V LIN FT 70 75.00$ 5,250.00$
8 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER EACH 1 1,000.00$ 1,000.00$
9 2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 LIN FT 12.5 350.00$ 4,375.00$
10 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 2 1,000.00$ 2,000.00$
11 2511.501 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS II CU YD 15.2 125.00$ 1,900.00$
12 2511.515 GEOTEXTILE FILTER TYPE III SQ YD 80.4 6.00$ 482.40$
13 2573.560 CULVERT END CONTROLS EACH 8 250.00$ 2,000.00$
Schedule C Base:141,352.40$
10% Contingency 14,200.00$
Schedule C Total:155,600.00$
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - FEASIBILITY
Contract:C.P. 17-07
Owner:City of Lakeville
Project:222nd Street West Street and Utility Improvements
KHA Job No:160734009
Schedule:D
Description:SANITARY
Item No.
Mn/DOT
No.Item Description Unit
Contract
Quantity Unit Price Amount
1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 0.2 65,000.00$ 13,000.00$
2 2503.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EACH 2 1,000.00$ 2,000.00$
3 2503.603 8" PVC PIPE SEWER LIN FT 3238 40.00$ 129,520.00$
4 2506.501 CONST DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DES 48-4020 LIN FT 124.1 350.00$ 43,435.00$
5 2506.516 CASTING ASSEMBLY EACH 9 1,000.00$ 9,000.00$
6 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS LIN FT 3000 2.00$ 6,000.00$
7 2575.501 SEEDING ACRE 1.7 500.00$ 850.00$
8 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 POUND 100 6.00$ 600.00$
9 2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 1 TON 3.4 500.00$ 1,700.00$
Schedule D Base:206,105.00$
10% Contingency 20,700.00$
Schedule D Total:226,900.00$
Schedule:E
Description:WATER
Item No.
Mn/DOT
No.Item Description Unit
Contract
Quantity Unit Price Amount
1 2021.501 MOBILIZATION LUMP SUM 0.2 65,000.00$ 13,000.00$
2 2504.602 WATERMAIN OFFSET EACH 3 4,000.00$ 12,000.00$
3 2504.602 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN (SPEC)EACH 1 2,000.00$ 2,000.00$
4 2504.602 HYDRANT EACH 8 7,500.00$ 60,000.00$
5 2504.602 10" GATE VALVE EACH 4 4,000.00$ 16,000.00$
6 2504.602 12" GATE VALVE EACH 8 5,000.00$ 40,000.00$
7 2504.603 6" PVC WATERMAIN LIN FT 100 30.00$ 3,000.00$
8 2504.603 8" PVC WATERMAIN LIN FT 60 40.00$ 2,400.00$
9 2504.603 10" PVC WATERMAIN LIN FT 1400 50.00$ 70,000.00$
10 2504.603 12" PVC WATERMAIN LIN FT 2635 55.00$ 144,925.00$
11 2504.603 18" STEEL CASING PIPE (JACKED)LIN FT 100 500.00$ 50,000.00$
12 2504.608 DUCTILE IRON FITTINGS POUND 2000 7.50$ 15,000.00$
13 2573.502 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS LIN FT 2000 2.00$ 4,000.00$
14 2575.501 SEEDING ACRE 2 500.00$ 1,000.00$
15 2575.502 SEED MIXTURE 25-141 POUND 118 6.00$ 708.00$
16 2575.511 MULCH MATERIAL TYPE 1 TON 4 500.00$ 2,000.00$
Schedule E Base:436,033.00$
10% Contingency 43,700.00$
Schedule E Total:479,800.00$
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST - FEASIBILITY
Contract:C.P. 17-07
Owner:City of Lakeville
Project:222nd Street West Street and Utility Improvements
KHA Job No:160734009
COST SUMMARY
Contract:C.P. 17-07
Owner:City of Lakeville
Project:222nd Street West Street and Utility Improvements
Schedule Description Amount
A CEDAR AVE 119,700.00$
B 222ND STREET 358,900.00$
C STORM 155,600.00$
D SANITARY 226,900.00$
E WATER 479,800.00$
Total Base Bid 1,340,900.00$
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
APPENDIX D
Assessment Map ID
Preliminary Assessment Roll
215TH ST W
220TH ST W CEDAR AVENUELAKEVILLE BLVD
A i r l a k eAirport
1
218TH ST WHANOVER AVEGLADE AVEGRENADA AVELAKEVILLE BLVD
Dakota County GIS
222nd Street and Utility Improvement ProjectParcel Assessment ²
0 500 1,000250Feet
Assessment Parcels
Lakeville Municipal Boundary
Project Name:222nd Street and Utility Improvement ProjectDate:4/17/2017City Project No.17-07Project Location:ASSESSMENT ID PID FULLNAME OWNER ADDRESS CITY/STATE ZIPCODE1 220031025011 HAT TRICK INVESTMENTS LLC 800 LASALLE AVE STE 1610 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402222nd Street and Utility Improvement ProjectEast of and adjacent to Cedar Avenue (CSAH 23), south of Lakeville Boulevard, west of the Lakeville corporate limits, and north of the Lakeville corporate limits.
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
APPENDIX E
2017 Geotechnical Report – Log of Test Boring
Table of Contents
Description Page
A. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
A.1. Project Description .............................................................................................................. 1
A.2. Site Conditions and History ................................................................................................. 2
A.3. Purpose ................................................................................................................................ 3
A.4. Background Information and Reference Documents .......................................................... 3
A.5. Scope of Services ................................................................................................................. 3
B. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 5
B.1. Geologic Overview .............................................................................................................. 5
B.2. Boring Results ..................................................................................................................... 5
B.3. Groundwater ....................................................................................................................... 6
B.4. Laboratory Test Results ....................................................................................................... 8
C. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 8
C.1. Design and Construction Discussion ................................................................................... 8
C.1.a. Introduction............................................................................................................ 8
C.1.b. Building Subgrade Preparation .............................................................................. 8
C.1.c. Existing Fill .............................................................................................................. 8
C.1.d. Reuse of On-Site Soils ............................................................................................. 9
C.1.e. Groundwater .......................................................................................................... 9
C.1.f. Pavement ............................................................................................................... 9
C.2. Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation ............................................................................ 10
C.2.a. Building Subgrade Excavations ............................................................................. 10
C.2.b. Excavation Oversizing ........................................................................................... 10
C.2.c. Excavated Slopes .................................................................................................. 11
C.2.d. Excavation Dewatering ......................................................................................... 11
C.2.e. Pavement and Exterior Slab Subgrade Preparation ............................................. 11
C.2.f. Pavement Subgrade Proofroll .............................................................................. 12
C.2.g. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction .......................................................... 13
C.2.h. Special Inspections of Soils ................................................................................... 14
C.3. Spread Footings ................................................................................................................. 15
C.4. Below-Grade Walls ............................................................................................................ 15
C.4.a. Drainage Control .................................................................................................. 16
C.4.b. Configuring and Resisting Lateral Loads............................................................... 17
C.5. Interior Slabs ..................................................................................................................... 18
C.5.a. Subgrade Modulus ............................................................................................... 18
C.5.b. Moisture Vapor Protection .................................................................................. 18
C.6. Frost Protection ................................................................................................................. 19
C.7. Pavements and Exterior Slabs ........................................................................................... 20
C.7.a. Design Sections .................................................................................................... 20
C.7.b. Bituminous Pavement Materials .......................................................................... 21
C.7.c. Subgrade Drainage ............................................................................................... 21
C.7.d. Performance and Maintenance ........................................................................... 21
C.8. Utilities .............................................................................................................................. 22
C.8.a. Subgrade Stabilization .......................................................................................... 22
C.8.b. Corrosion Potential .............................................................................................. 22
C.9. Stormwater........................................................................................................................ 23
Table of Contents (continued)
Description Page
C.10. Equipment Support ........................................................................................................... 24
D. Procedures...................................................................................................................................... 24
D.1. Penetration Test Borings ................................................................................................... 24
D.2. Exploration Logs ................................................................................................................ 24
D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets ............................................................................................. 24
D.2.b. Geologic Origins ................................................................................................... 25
D.3. Material Classification and Testing ................................................................................... 25
D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification .......................................................................... 25
D.3.b. Laboratory Testing ............................................................................................... 25
D.4. Groundwater Measurements ............................................................................................ 25
E. Qualifications .................................................................................................................................. 26
E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions .................................................................................. 26
E.1.a. Material Strata ..................................................................................................... 26
E.1.b. Groundwater Levels ............................................................................................. 26
E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility .......................................................................... 26
E.2.a. Plan Review .......................................................................................................... 26
E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing ............................................................... 27
E.3. Use of Report..................................................................................................................... 27
E.4. Standard of Care ................................................................................................................ 27
Appendix
Soil Boring Location Sketch
Log of Boring Sheets ST-1 through ST-24
Descriptive Terminology of Soil
A. Introduction
A.1. Project Description
This Geotechnical Evaluation Report addresses the proposed design and construction of the proposed
Launch Industrial Park, located in Lakeville, Minnesota. The overall project will be constructed in several
phases. This report addresses the planned first phase of the development, which includes the
development of Lot 1 and a public access road connecting to Cedar Avenue. Table 1 provides project
details.
Table 1. Project Details
Aspect Description
Below grade levels None
Above grade levels One
Finished floor elevation 946.5 - Lot 1 (Provided)
946.25 - Future Lots 2 & 3 (Provided)
Column loads (kips) Maximum of 250 (Assumed)
Wall loads (kips/ft) Maximum of 10 (Assumed)
Nature of construction
Spread footings with precast concrete or masonry
block walls with a steel frame and slab-on-grade.
(Assumed)
Cuts or fills for buildings 2 to 4 ½ foot fills - Lot 1 (Provided)
4 to 5 foot fills - Future Lots 2 and 3 (Provided)
Tolerable building settlement 1 inch total and less than 1 /2 inch differential
(Assumed)
Provided/Assumed Pavement loads
Standard Duty: 50,000 ESALs*
Heavy Duty: 250,000 ESALs*
Public Access Road: 500,000 ESALs*
Grade changes Cuts and fills less than 3 feet (Assumed)
*Equivalent 18,000-lb single axle loads based on 20-year design.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 2
The boring location sketch in the Appendix shows an illustration of the proposed site layout.
A.2. Site Conditions and History
Currently, the site is undeveloped and is being used for agricultural purposes.
Current grades range from 941 to 944. Generally, the site is relatively flat and does not appear to have a
predominant drainage pattern.
Photograph 1. Aerial Photograph of the Site in 2016
Photograph provided by Google Maps.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 3
A.3. Purpose
The purpose of our geotechnical evaluation will be to characterize subsurface geologic conditions at
selected exploration locations and provide geotechnical recommendations for the design and
construction of the proposed buildings, pavements, utilities and stormwater basins.
A.4. Background Information and Reference Documents
We reviewed the following information:
Schematic Site plan prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. dated 12/19/16.
Surficial Geology Map of Dakota County by Howard C. Hobbs, Saul Aronow and Carrie J.
Patterson, 1990.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Braun Intertec Corporation and dated
November 7, 2016.
In addition to the provided sources, we have used several publicly available sources of information.
We have described our understanding of the proposed construction and site to the extent others
reported it to us. Depending on the extent of available information, we may have made assumptions
based on our experience with similar projects. If we have not correctly recorded or interpreted the
project details, the project team should notify us. New or changed information could require additional
evaluation, analyses and/or recommendations.
A.5. Scope of Services
We performed our scope of services for the project in accordance with our Proposal for a Geotechnical
Evaluation to Ms. Trisha Sieh, dated August 31, 2016. The following list describes the geotechnical tasks
completed in accordance with our authorized scope of services.
Reviewing the background information and reference documents previously cited.
Staking and clearing the exploration location of underground utilities. Braun Intertec selected
and staked the new exploration locations. We acquired the surface elevations and locations
with GPS technology using the State of Minnesota’s permanent GPS base station network.
The Soil Boring Location Sketch included in the Appendix shows the approximate locations of
the borings.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 4
Performing 24 standard penetration test (SPT) borings, denoted as ST-1 to ST-24, to nominal
depths of 11 to 21 feet below grade across the site.
Performing laboratory testing on select samples to aid in soil classification and engineering
analysis.
Perform engineering analysis including settlement and bearing capacity calculations and
pavement design.
Preparing this report containing a boring location sketch, logs of soil borings, a summary of
the soils encountered, results of laboratory tests, and recommendations for structure and
pavement subgrade preparation and the design of foundations, floor slabs, exterior slabs,
utilities, stormwater improvements and pavements.
Our scope of services did not include environmental testing on the samples retrieved during drilling.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 5
B. Results
B.1. Geologic Overview
Based on our review of the geologic map, the native soils on this site consist of mixed glacial outwash
consisting of sand, loamy sand and gravel.
We based the geologic origins used in this report on the soil types, in-situ and laboratory testing, and
available common knowledge of the geological history of the site. Because of the complex depositional
history, geologic origins can be difficult to ascertain. We did not perform a detailed investigation of the
geologic history for the site.
B.2. Boring Results
Table 2 provides a summary of the soil boring results, in the general order we encountered the strata.
Please refer to the Log of Boring sheets in the Appendix for additional details. The Descriptive
Terminology sheets in the Appendix include definitions of abbreviations used in Table 2. Note that soils
described as moist are considered to be near or below their probable optimum moisture content. Soils
described as wet are considered to be above their probable optimum moisture content. Soils described
as waterbearing are considered to be approaching saturation.
Table 2. Subsurface Profile Summary*
Strata
Soil Type -
ASTM
Classification
Range of Penetration
Resistances Commentary and Details
Topsoil/
Topsoil Fill CL NA
Dark brown to black.
Thicknesses at boring locations varied from 8 to 15
inches.
Moisture condition generally wet.
Fill CL 12 BPF to 18 BPF
Moisture condition varies from moist to wet.
Thicknesses at boring locations varied from 6 1/2 to
9 feet.
Occasional layers of slightly organic to organic soils.
Boring ST-1 contained variable amounts of
bituminous.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 6
Strata
Soil Type -
ASTM
Classification
Range of Penetration
Resistances Commentary and Details
Glacial
deposits
SP, SP-SM,
SM, SC 4 to 48 BPF
Layers of silty and clayey soils below the topsoil in
some of the borings.
Variable amounts of gravel; may contain cobbles
and boulders.
Moisture condition generally moist above the water
table and then transitioning quickly from wet to
waterbearing.
General penetration resistance of 7 to 18 BPF.
*Abbreviations defined in the attached Descriptive Terminology sheets.
For simplicity in this report, we define existing fill to mean existing, uncontrolled or undocumented fill.
B.3. Groundwater
Table 3 summarizes the depths where we observed groundwater; the attached Log of Boring sheets in
the Appendix also include this information and additional details. We rounded the water elevations up to
the nearest ½-foot.
Table 3. Groundwater Summary
Location
Surface
Elevation
Measured or Estimated
Depth to Groundwater
(ft)
Corresponding
Groundwater Elevation
(ft)
ST-1 938.7 7 1/2 931 1/2
ST-2 941.8 7 935
ST-3 943.4 10 933 1/2
ST-4 944.8 12 933
ST-5 943.6 10 934
ST-6 942.6 10 933
ST-7 944.0 12 1/2 931 1/2
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 7
Location
Surface
Elevation
Measured or Estimated
Depth to Groundwater
(ft)
Corresponding
Groundwater Elevation
(ft)
ST-8 943.4 10 933 1/2
ST-9 942.5 10 932 1/2
ST-10 941.9 10 932
ST-11 943.2 12 1/2 931
ST-12 941.7 10 932
ST-13 941.7 10 932
ST-14 941.5 10 931 1/2
ST-15 941.1 10 931 1/2
ST-16 942.6 12 1/2 930 1/2
ST-17 942.4 12 1/2 930
ST-18 942.6 12 1/2 930 1/2
ST-19 942.2 Not encountered ---
ST-20 941.9 12 1/2 930
ST-21 940.9 10 931
ST-22 941.4 12 1/2 929
ST-23 942.1 12 1/2 930
ST-24 941.3 12 1/2 929
At the time of our observation, the groundwater surface elevation appeared to be in the range of about
elevation 934 to 929 feet. The water level appeared to be slightly higher in the western and
northwestern portion of the site. Project planning should expect groundwater will fluctuate in relation
the season and amount of precipitation.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 8
B.4. Laboratory Test Results
The boring logs show the results of moisture content and sieve analyses testing we performed, next to
the tested sample depth. The Appendix contains the results of these tests.
C. Recommendations
C.1. Design and Construction Discussion
C.1.a. Introduction
The subsurface conditions at this site are generally conducive to the planned development. However, the
site does contain a significant amount of topsoil. Options for managing the topsoil on-site include placing
the topsoil in berms or mining the on-site sands from planned landscaped areas or at depth in pavement
areas and replacing them with the topsoil. If topsoil is placed below pavement areas, it should be placed
a minimum of 4 feet below the bottom of the aggregate base layer in compacted lifts.
We understand that it is currently planned to mass grade Outlot A as part of this project. Prior to placing
fill in Outlot A, surface vegetation, root zones and topsoil should be removed to eliminate the need for
rework when the buildings and pavements are constructed in the future.
C.1.b. Building Subgrade Preparation
Surface vegetation, root zones and topsoil should be removed from the building pad. After removal of
those materials, the exposed subgrade should be surface compacted to at least 98% of the standard
Proctor maximum dry density (ASTM International 698) prior to the placement of fill needed to reach
design elevations. Depending upon the time of year, the on-site sands may be dry of their optimum
moisture content and require the addition of water to achieve the specified compaction.
C.1.c. Existing Fill
Existing fill was encountered in the two borings performed along Cedar Avenue where the utility
extension is planned. The fill soils consisted of sandy lean clay that contained varying amounts of gravel
and locally contained organic materials and bituminous fragments. Portions of the fill soils were overly
wet and may require drying to achieve the specified compaction for reuse as utility trench backfill.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 9
C.1.d. Reuse of On-Site Soils
The topsoil should not be placed in building pads or the upper 4 feet of pavement areas. Ideally, the
topsoil would be placed in landscaped areas to replace sand mined from those areas and/or as berms. If
there is not sufficient space available in the landscaped area to “lose” the topsoil, the topsoil may be
buried at depths below 4 feet in pavement areas. The topsoil would need to be compacted to at least 95
percent of the standard Proctor maximum dry density and cannot contain the surface vegetation or root
zones.
The majority of the on-site sands contain less than 12 percent passing the #200 sieve and may be used as
fill throughout the building and pavement areas. Those sands may require the addition of water to
achieve the specified compaction.
The on-site sands that contain more than 12 percent passing the #200 sieve may be used as fill within the
building pads and at depths greater than 3 feet below the bottom of the aggregate base in pavement
areas. Note that these soils will be susceptible to disturbance from construction traffic, particularly when
wet, and may require additional stabilization after being placed and compacted.
C.1.e. Groundwater
Groundwater was observed in all but one boring. Groundwater was observed at elevations ranging from
935 to 929, but was typically between elevations of 933 to 931. Groundwater elevations tended to be 1
to 2 feet higher in the western and northwestern portion of the site and then lower in the remaining
portion of the site.
Given the on-site sands, if excavations extend near or below those elevations, dewatering wells will likely
be required to remove groundwater from the planned excavation.
C.1.f. Pavement
Portions of the site contain silty sand and clayey sand layers near the surface. Those soils are considered
highly susceptible to disturbance and loss of strength from moisture and construction traffic. Those soils
are also moderately to highly frost susceptible. In order to provide a more stable subgrade during
construction as well as better long-term performance of the pavements, soils containing more than 12
percent passing the #200 sieve should be removed from the upper 3 feet of pavement subgrades. The
silty and clayey soils may be placed at depths below the upper 3 feet of the pavement subgrades, placed
in the building pad or blended with the low fine content sands.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 10
C.2. Site Grading and Subgrade Preparation
C.2.a. Building Subgrade Excavations
We recommend removing surface vegetation, root zones and topsoil below the proposed building pads
and their oversize areas. Based on the borings, we do not anticipate soil beyond topsoil removal. We also
recommend having a geotechnical engineer, or an engineering technician working under the direction of
a geotechnical engineer, (geotechnical representative) evaluate the suitability of exposed subgrade soils
to support the proposed structure.
Prior to the placement of engineered fill or footings, we recommend surface compacting the exposed
soils in the bottoms of the excavations to a minimum of 98 percent of the standard Proctor. Areas that
yield or pump during surface compaction may require additional subcutting.
C.2.b. Excavation Oversizing
When removing unsuitable materials below structures or pavements, we recommend the excavation
extend outward and downward at a slope of 1H:1V (horizontal:vertical) or flatter. See Figure 1 for an
illustration of excavation oversizing.
Figure 1. Generalized Illustration of Oversizing
1. Engineered fill as defined in C.2.g.
2. Excavation oversizing minimum of 1 to 1
(horizontal to vertical) slope or flatter
3. Engineered fill as required to meet
pavement support or landscaping
requirements as defined in C.2.g
4. Backslope to OSHA requirements
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 11
C.2.c. Excavated Slopes
Based on the borings, we anticipate on-site soils in excavations will consist of sands. These soils are
typically considered Type C Soil under OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) guidelines.
OSHA guidelines indicate unsupported excavations in Type C soils should have a gradient no steeper than
1 1/2H:1V. Slopes constructed in this manner may still exhibit surface sloughing. OSHA requires an
engineer to evaluate slopes or excavations over 20 feet in depth.
An OSHA-approved qualified person should review the soil classification in the field. Excavations must
comply with the requirements of OSHA 29 CFR, Part 1926, Subpart P, “Excavations and Trenches.” This
document states excavation safety is the responsibility of the contractor. The project specifications
should reference these OSHA requirements.
C.2.d. Excavation Dewatering
We recommend removing groundwater from the excavations. Dewatering of high-permeability soils (e.g.,
sands) from within the excavation with conventional pumps has the potential to loosen the soils, due to
upward flow. A well contractor should develop a dewatering plan; the design team should review this
plan.
C.2.e. Pavement and Exterior Slab Subgrade Preparation
We recommend the following steps for pavement and exterior slab subgrade preparation.
1. Strip unsuitable materials consisting of surface vegetation, root zones and topsoil from the
pavement areas.
2. Remove soils containing more than 12 percent passing the #200 sieve within 3 feet of the
bottom elevation of the aggregate base layer.
3. Have a geotechnical representative observe the excavated subgrade to evaluate if additional
subgrade improvements are necessary.
4. Moisture condition and surface compact the subgrade to at least 95 percent of standard
Proctor density below the upper 3 feet of the subgrade (100 percent in the upper 3 feet of
the subgrade).
5. Place pavement engineered fill to grade and compact in accordance with Section C.2.g to
bottom of pavement and exterior slab section. See Section C.6 for additional considerations
related to frost heave.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 12
C.2.f. Pavement Subgrade Proofroll
The subgrade soils are anticipated to consist of sand with less than 12 percent passing the #200 sieve.
Those sands will rut and shove below typical narrow rubber tired vehicles. Unless there is an off-road
dump truck or water truck on-site, the proof roll will likely have to be performed after the placement of
the aggregate base.
After preparing the subgrade as described above and after placement of the aggregate base, we
recommend proofrolling the subgrade soils with a fully loaded tandem-axle truck. We also recommend
having a geotechnical representative observe the proofroll. Areas that fail the proofroll likely indicate
soft or weak areas that will require additional soil correction work to support pavements.
The contractor should correct areas that display excessive yielding or rutting during the proofroll, as
determined by the geotechnical representative. Possible options for subgrade correction include
moisture conditioning and recompaction, subcutting and replacement with soil or crushed aggregate,
chemical stabilization and/or geotextiles.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 13
C.2.g. Engineered Fill Materials and Compaction
Table 4 below contains our recommendations for engineered fill materials.
Table 4. Engineered Fill Materials*
Locations To Be Used
Engineered Fill
Classification
Possible Soil Type
Descriptions Gradation
Additional
Requirements
Below foundations
Below interior slabs Structural fill SP, SP-SM, SM, SC 100% passing 2-inch sieve < 2% Organic
Content (OC)
Drainage layer
Non-frost-
susceptible
Free-draining
Non-frost-
susceptible fill
GP, GW, SP, SW
100% passing 1-inch sieve
< 50% passing #40 sieve
< 5% passing #200 sieve
< 2% OC
Behind below-grade
walls, beyond
drainage layer
Retained fill SP, SW, SP-SM,
SW-SM, SM
100% passing 3-inch sieve
< 20% passing #200 sieve
< 2% OC
Plasticity Index (PI)
< 4%
Pavements Pavement fill,
upper 3 feet SP, SP-SM
100% passing 3-inch
sieve, < 12% passing
#200 sieve
< 2% OC
Pavements Pavement fill,
below 3 feet
SP, SP-SM, SM,
SC, CL 100% passing 3-inch sieve < 2% OC*
Below landscaped
surfaces, where
subsidence is not a
concern
Non-structural fill 100% passing 6-inch sieve < 10% OC
*Unless excess topsoil is placed at depth below pavements
We recommend spreading engineered fill in loose lifts of approximately 8 inches thick. We recommend
compacting engineered fill in accordance with the criteria presented below in Table 5. The project
documents should specify relative compaction of engineered fill, based on the structure located above
the engineered fill, and vertical proximity to that structure.
Table 5. Compaction Recommendations Summary
Reference
Relative
Compaction, percent
(ASTM D698 –
Standard Proctor)
(ASTM D1557 –
Modified Proctor)
Moisture Content Variance from Optimum,
percentage points
< 12% Passing #200 Sieve
(typically SP, SP-SM)
> 12% Passing #200 Sieve
(typically CL, SC, SM)
Below foundations and
oversizing zones 98 ±3 -1 to +3
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 14
Reference
Relative
Compaction, percent
(ASTM D698 –
Standard Proctor)
(ASTM D1557 –
Modified Proctor)
Moisture Content Variance from Optimum,
percentage points
< 12% Passing #200 Sieve
(typically SP, SP-SM)
> 12% Passing #200 Sieve
(typically CL, SC, SM)
Below interior slabs 98 ±3 -1 to +3
Within 3 feet of pavement
subgrade 100 ±3 Not allowed
More than 3 feet below
pavement subgrade 95 ±3 ±3
Below landscaped
surfaces 90 ±5 ±4
Adjacent to below-grade
wall 95* ±3 -1 to +3
*Increase compaction requirement to meet compaction required for structure supported by this engineered fill.
The project documents should not allow the contractor to use frozen material as engineered fill or to
place engineered fill on frozen material. Frost should not penetrate under foundations during
construction.
We recommend performing density tests in engineered fill to evaluate if the contractors are effectively
compacting the soil and meeting project requirements.
C.2.h. Special Inspections of Soils
We recommend including the site grading and placement of engineered fill within the building pad under
the requirements of Special Inspections, as provided in Chapter 17 of the International Building Code,
which is part of the Minnesota State Building Code. Special Inspection requires observation of soil
conditions below engineered fill or footings, evaluations to determine if excavations extend to the
anticipated soils, and if engineered fill materials meet requirements for type of engineered fill and
compaction condition of engineered fill. A licensed geotechnical engineer should direct the Special
Inspections of site grading and engineered fill placement.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 15
The purpose of these Special Inspections is to evaluate whether the work is in accordance with the
approved Geotechnical Report for the project. Special Inspections should include evaluation of the
subgrade, observing preparation of the subgrade (surface compaction or dewatering, excavation
oversizing, placement procedures and materials used for engineered fill, etc.) and compaction testing of
the engineered fill.
C.3. Spread Footings
Table 6 below contains our recommended parameters for foundation design.
Table 6. Recommended Spread Footing Design Parameters
Item Description
Maximum net allowable bearing pressure (psf)
4,000
Minimum factor of safety for bearing capacity failure 3.0
Minimum width (inches) 24
Minimum embedment below final exterior grade for heated
structures (inches) 42
Minimum embedment below final exterior grade for
unheated structures or for footings not protected from
freezing temperatures during construction (inches)
60
Total estimated settlement (inches) 1
Differential settlement Typically about 1/2 of total settlement*
* Actual differential settlement amounts will depend on final loads and foundation layout. When tying into the existing
buildings, the total settlement of this new building will be differential to the existing building. We can evaluate differential
settlement based on final foundation plans and loadings.
C.4. Below-Grade Walls
While this will be a slab-on-grade building, we understand some of the foundation walls may act as small
(less than 3 1/2 feet) soil retaining walls, such as in loading dock areas. For walls with unbalanced fill
loads, we recommend the engineered fill located within 5 feet of the walls consist of retained fill as
defined in Table 4.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 16
We recommend designing the walls based on sand backfill having an equivalent fluid pressure of 40
pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for active pressure, and 60 pcf for at-rest earth pressure. Designs should also
consider the slope of any fill and dead or live loads, including equipment and materials, placed within a
horizontal distance behind the walls that is equal to the height of the walls. Our recommended values
also assume the wall design provides drainage to prevent water from accumulating behind the walls. The
construction documents should clearly identify the material properties of the soil the contractor should
use for wall fill.
The project documents should indicate if walls need bracing prior to filling and allowable unbalanced fill
heights.
C.4.a. Drainage Control
We recommend installing drain tile to remove water behind the below-grade walls, at the location shown
in Figure 2. The below-grade wall drainage system should also incorporate free-draining, engineered fill
or a drainage board placed against the wall and connected to the drain tile.
Even with the use of free-draining, engineered fill, we recommend general waterproofing of below-grade
walls that surround occupied or potentially occupied areas because of the potential cost impacts related
to seepage after construction is complete.
Figure 2. Generalized Illustration of Wall Engineered Fill
1. 2-foot wide area of Free-
Draining Engineered Fill or
Drainage Board
2. Retained Engineered Fill
3. 1 foot of Low-Permeability
Soil or Pavement
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 17
The materials listed in the sketch should meet the definitions in Section C.2.g. Low-permeability material
is capable of directing water away from the wall, like clay, topsoil or pavement. The project documents
should indicate if the contractor should brace the walls prior to filling and allowable unbalanced fill
heights.
As shown in Figure 2, we recommend Zone 2 consist of retained, engineered fill, and this material will
control lateral pressures on the wall. However, we are also providing design parameters for using other
engineered fill material. If final design uses non-sand material for engineered fill, project planning should
account for the following items:
Other engineered fill material may result in higher lateral pressure on the wall.
Other engineered fill material may be more difficult to compact.
Post-construction consolidation of other engineered fill material may result in settlement-
related damage to the structures or slabs supported on the engineered fill. Post-construction
settlement of other engineered fill material may also cause drainage towards the structure.
The magnitude of consolidation could be up to about 3 percent of the wall fill thickness.
C.4.b. Configuring and Resisting Lateral Loads
Below-grade wall design can use active earth pressure conditions, if the walls can rotate slightly. If the
wall design cannot tolerate rotation, then design should use at-rest earth pressure conditions. Rotation
up to 0.002 times the wall height is generally required for walls supporting sand. Rotation up to 0.02
times the wall height is required when wall supports clay.
Table 7 presents our recommended lateral coefficients and equivalent fluid pressures for wall design of
active, at-rest and passive earth pressure conditions. The table also provides recommended wet unit
weights and internal friction angles. Designs should also consider the slope of any engineered fill and
dead or live loads placed behind the walls within a horizontal distance that is equal to the height of the
walls. Our recommended values assume the wall design provides drainage so water cannot accumulate
behind the walls. The construction documents should clearly identify what soils the contractor should
use for engineered fill of walls.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 18
Table 7. Recommended Below-Grade Wall Design Parameters – Drained Conditions
Retained Soil
Wet Unit
Weight,
pcf
Friction
Angle,
degrees
Active Lateral
Coefficient/
Equivalent Fluid
Pressure*
(pcf)
At-Rest Lateral
Coefficient/
Equivalent Fluid
Pressure*
(pcf)
Passive Lateral
Coefficient/
Equivalent Fluid
Pressure*
(pcf)
Retained Fill 120 30 0.33/40 0.5/60 3/360
* Based on Rankine model for soils in a region behind the wall extending at least 2 horizontal feet beyond the bottom outer
edges of the wall footings and then rising up and away from the wall at an angle no steeper than 60 degrees from horizontal.
Sliding resistance between the bottom of the footing and the soil can also resist lateral pressures. We
recommend assuming a sliding coefficient equal to 0.45 between the concrete and soil.
The values presented in this section are un-factored.
C.5. Interior Slabs
C.5.a. Subgrade Modulus
The anticipated floor subgrade will consist of compacted sand backfill. We recommend using a modulus
of subgrade reaction, k, of 175 pounds per square inch per inch of deflection (pci) to design the slabs. If
the slab design requires placing 6 inches of compacted crushed aggregate base immediately below the
slab, the slab design may increase the k-value by 50 pci. We recommend that the aggregate base
materials be free of bituminous. In addition to improving the modulus of subgrade reaction, an aggregate
base facilitates construction activities and is less weather sensitive.
C.5.b. Moisture Vapor Protection
Excess transmission of water vapor could cause floor dampness, certain types of floor bonding agents to
separate, or mold to form under floor coverings. If project planning includes using floor coverings or
coatings, we recommend placing a vapor retarder or vapor barrier immediately beneath the slab. We
also recommend consulting with floor covering manufacturers regarding the appropriate type, use and
installation of the vapor retarder or barrier to preserve warranty assurances.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 19
C.6. Frost Protection
We consider the silty and clayey sands to be slightly frost susceptible. While the proposed construction
will remove the majority of these soils, unfavorable amounts of heaving could occur if these soils become
saturated and freeze. Grading to direct surface drainage away from buildings helps limit the potential for
saturation and subsequent heaving to occur. Still, even limited amounts of movement can create tripping
hazards.
One method to help limit the potential for heaving to occur is to remove frost-susceptible soils present
below the overlying slab or pavement area down to bottom-of-footing grades, and replace the excavated
material with non-frost-susceptible, engineered fill. We recommend providing drainage at the base of
the subcut, as well as gradual transitions from this subcut (3H:1V or flatter gradient).
Figure 3 shows an illustration summarizing some of the recommendations above.
Figure 3. Frost Protection Geometry Illustration
An alternative method to reduce the risk of heaving is to support the slabs on frost-depth footings, and
suspend the slabs at least 4 inches above the underlying subgrade soils. With this alternative, we
recommend making accommodations for differential frost heave at transition areas.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 20
Over the life of the pavement or slab, cracks may develop and joints may open up, which will expose the
subgrade and allow water to enter the subgrade. This water entering the subgrade increases the
likelihood of heave. It will be critical that the owner develop a detailed maintenance program to repair
any cracks and joints that may develop during the useful life of the various surface features. The
maintenance program should pay special attention to areas where dissimilar materials abut one another,
where construction joints occur and where shrinkage cracks develop.
C.7. Pavements and Exterior Slabs
C.7.a. Design Sections
Our scope of services for this project did not include laboratory tests on subgrade soils to determine an
R-value for pavement design. Based on our experience with similar sand soils anticipated at the
pavement subgrade elevation, we recommend pavement design assume an R-value of 50. Note the
contractor may need to perform limited removal of unsuitable or less suitable soils to achieve this value.
Table 8 provides recommended pavement sections, based on the soils support and traffic loads.
We based the concrete pavement designs on a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 175 pci.
Table 8. Recommended Bituminous Pavement Sections
Use Light Duty Heavy Duty Public Access Road
Minimum asphalt thickness
(inches) 3.5 4.5 5.5
Minimum aggregate base
thickness (inches) 6 10 10
Table 9. Recommended Concrete Pavement Sections
Use Heavy Duty Dolly Pads, if any
Minimum concrete thickness
(inches) 6 8
Minimum aggregate base thickness
(inches) 4 4
We assumed the concrete pavement sections in Table 9 will have edge support. We recommend placing
an aggregate base below the pavement to provide a suitable subgrade for concrete placement, reduce
faulting and help dissipate loads. Appropriate mix designs, panel sizing, jointing, doweling and edge
reinforcement are critical to performance of rigid pavements.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 21
C.7.b. Bituminous Pavement Materials
We recommend specifying crushed aggregate base meeting the requirements of Minnesota Department
of Transportation (MnDOT) Specification 3138 for Class 5. We recommend that the bituminous wear and
base courses meet the requirements of Specifications 2360.
We recommend the aggregate gradations for the asphalt mixes meet Gradation Number B for the base
course and Gradation A for the surface course. We recommend utilizing traffic level 3 for the
pavements. We recommend the Performance Graded Asphalt cement be PG 58-28.
We recommend that the aggregate base be compacted to a minimum of 100 percent of its maximum
standard Proctor dry density. We recommend that the bituminous pavement be compacted to at least 92
percent of the maximum theoretical Rice density.
We recommend specifying concrete for pavements that has a minimum 28-day compressive strength of
4,500 psi, and a modulus of rupture (Mr) of at least 600 psi. We also recommend Type I cement meeting
the requirements of ASTM International C 150. We recommend specifying 5 to 7 percent entrained air
for exposed concrete to provide resistance to freeze-thaw deterioration. We also recommend using a
water/cement ratio of 0.45 or less for concrete exposed to deicers.
C.7.c. Subgrade Drainage
We recommend installing perforated drainpipes throughout pavement areas at low points, around catch
basins, and behind curb in landscaped areas. We also recommend installing drainpipes along pavement
and exterior slab edges where exterior grades promote drainage toward those edge areas. The
contractor should place drainpipes in small trenches, extended at least 8 inches below the granular
subbase layer, or below the aggregate base material where no subbase is present.
C.7.d. Performance and Maintenance
We based the above pavement designs on a 20-year performance life for bituminous and a 30-year life
for concrete. This is the amount of time before we anticipate the pavement will require reconstruction.
This performance life assumes routine maintenance, such as seal coating and crack sealing. The actual
pavement life will vary depending on variations in weather, traffic conditions and maintenance.
It is common to place the non-wear course of bituminous and then delay placement of wear course. For
this situation, we recommend evaluating if the reduced pavement section will have sufficient structure to
support construction traffic.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 22
Many conditions affect the overall performance of the exterior slabs and pavements. Some of these
conditions include the environment, loading conditions and the level of ongoing maintenance. With
regard to bituminous pavements in particular, it is common to have thermal cracking develop within the
first few years of placement, and continue throughout the life of the pavement. We recommend
developing a regular maintenance plan for filling cracks in exterior slabs and pavements to lessen the
potential impacts for cold weather distress due to frost heave or warm weather distress due to wetting
and softening of the subgrade.
C.8. Utilities
C.8.a. Subgrade Stabilization
Earthwork activities associated with utility installations located inside the building area should adhere to
the recommendations in Section C.2.
For exterior utilities, we anticipate the soils at typical invert elevations will be suitable for utility support.
However, if construction encounters unfavorable conditions such as soft clay, organic soils or perched
water at invert grades, the unsuitable soils may require some additional subcutting and replacement
with sand or crushed rock to prepare a proper subgrade for pipe support. Project design and construction
should not place utilities within the 1H:1V oversizing of foundations.
C.8.b. Corrosion Potential
A majority of the soil borings indicated the site predominantly consists of sandy soils. We consider these
soils non- to slightly-corrosive to metallic conduits. If utilities extend through clay soils, we recommend
bedding the utilities in sandy soil free of any clay lumps or constructing the utilities with non-corrosive
materials.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 23
C.9. Stormwater
We estimated infiltration rates for some of the soils we encountered in our soil borings, as listed in Table
10. These infiltration rates represent the long-term infiltration capacity of a practice and not the capacity
of the soils in their natural state. Field testing, such as with a double-ring infiltrometer (ASTM D3385),
may justify the use of higher infiltration rates. However, we recommend adjusting field test rates by the
appropriate correction factor, as provided for in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual or as allowed by the
local watershed. We recommend consulting the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for stormwater design.
Table 10. Estimated Design Infiltration Rates Based on Soil Classification
Soil Type
Infiltration Rate *
(inches/hour)
Gravels and gravelly sands 1.63
Sands with less than 12% fines,
poorly graded or well graded sands 0.8
Silty sands, silty gravelly sands 0.45
Silts, very fine sands, silty or clayey fine sands 0.2
Clayey sands and clays 0.06
* From Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Rates may differ at individual sites.
Fine-grained soils (silts and clays), topsoil or organic matter that mixes into or washes onto the soil will
lower the permeability. The contractor should maintain and protect infiltration areas during
construction. Furthermore, organic matter and silt washed into the system after construction can fill the
soil pores and reduce permeability over time. Proper maintenance is important for long-term
performance of infiltration systems.
This geotechnical evaluation does not constitute a review of site suitability for stormwater infiltration or
evaluate the potential impacts, if any, from infiltration of large amounts of stormwater.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 24
C.10. Equipment Support
The recommendations included in the report may not be applicable to equipment used for the
construction and maintenance of this project. We recommend evaluating subgrade conditions in areas of
shoring, scaffolding, cranes, pumps, lifts and other construction equipment prior to mobilization to
determine if the exposed materials are suitable for equipment support, or require some form of
subgrade improvement. We also recommend project planning consider the effect that loads applied by
such equipment may have on structures they bear on or surcharge – including pavements, buried
utilities, below-grade walls, etc. We can assist you in this evaluation.
D. Procedures
D.1. Penetration Test Borings
We drilled the penetration test borings with an all-terrain mounted core and auger drill equipped with
hollow-stem auger. We performed the borings in general accordance with ASTM D6151 taking
penetration test samples at 2 1/2- or 5-foot intervals in general accordance to ASTM D1586. We
collected thin-walled tube samples in general accordance with ASTM D1587 at selected depths. The
boring logs show the actual sample intervals and corresponding depths. We also collected bulk samples
of auger cuttings at selected locations for laboratory testing.
D.2. Exploration Logs
D.2.a. Log of Boring Sheets
The Appendix includes Log of Boring sheets for our penetration test borings. The logs identify and
describe the penetrated geologic materials, and present the results of penetration resistance and other
in-situ tests performed. The logs also present the results of laboratory tests performed on penetration
test samples, and groundwater measurements.
We inferred strata boundaries from changes in the penetration test samples and the auger cuttings.
Because we did not perform continuous sampling, the strata boundary depths are only approximate. The
boundary depths likely vary away from the boring locations, and the boundaries themselves may occur as
gradual rather than abrupt transitions.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 25
D.2.b. Geologic Origins
We assigned geologic origins to the materials shown on the logs and referenced within this report, based
on: (1) a review of the background information and reference documents cited above, (2) visual
classification of the various geologic material samples retrieved during the course of our subsurface
exploration, (3) penetration resistance testing performed for the project, (4) laboratory test results, and
(5) available common knowledge of the geologic processes and environments that have impacted the
site and surrounding area in the past.
D.3. Material Classification and Testing
D.3.a. Visual and Manual Classification
We visually and manually classified the geologic materials encountered based on ASTM D2488. When we
performed laboratory classification tests, we used the results to classify the geologic materials in
accordance with ASTM D2487. The Appendix includes a chart explaining the classification system we
used.
D.3.b. Laboratory Testing
The exploration logs in the Appendix note most of the results of the laboratory tests performed on
geologic material samples. The remaining laboratory test results follow the exploration logs. We
performed the tests in general accordance with ASTM or AASHTO procedures.
D.4. Groundwater Measurements
The drillers checked for groundwater while advancing the penetration test borings, and again after auger
withdrawal. We then filled the boreholes or allowed them to remain open for an extended period of
observation, as noted on the boring logs.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 26
E. Qualifications
E.1. Variations in Subsurface Conditions
E.1.a. Material Strata
We developed our evaluation, analyses and recommendations from a limited amount of site and
subsurface information. It is not standard engineering practice to retrieve material samples from
exploration locations continuously with depth. Therefore, we must infer strata boundaries and
thicknesses to some extent. Strata boundaries may also be gradual transitions, and project planning
should expect the strata to vary in depth, elevation and thickness, away from the exploration locations.
Variations in subsurface conditions present between exploration locations may not be revealed until
performing additional exploration work, or starting construction. If future activity for this project reveals
any such variations, you should notify us so that we may reevaluate our recommendations. Such
variations could increase construction costs, and we recommend including a contingency to
accommodate them.
E.1.b. Groundwater Levels
We made groundwater measurements under the conditions reported herein and shown on the
exploration logs, and interpreted in the text of this report. Note that the observation periods were
relatively short, and project planning can expect groundwater levels to fluctuate in response to rainfall,
flooding, irrigation, seasonal freezing and thawing, surface drainage modifications and other seasonal
and annual factors.
E.2. Continuity of Professional Responsibility
E.2.a. Plan Review
We based this report on a limited amount of information, and we made a number of assumptions to help
us develop our recommendations. We should be retained to review the geotechnical aspects of the
designs and specifications. This review will allow us to evaluate whether we anticipated the design
correctly, if any design changes affect the validity of our recommendations, and if the design and
specifications correctly interpret and implement our recommendations.
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Project B1611095
January 11, 2017
Page 27
E.2.b. Construction Observations and Testing
We recommend retaining us to perform the required observations and testing during construction as
part of the ongoing geotechnical evaluation. This will allow us to correlate the subsurface conditions
exposed during construction with those encountered by the borings and provide professional continuity
from the design phase to the construction phase. If we do not perform observations and testing during
construction, it becomes the responsibility of others to validate the assumption made during the
preparation of this report and to accept the construction-related geotechnical engineer-of-record
responsibilities.
E.3. Use of Report
This report is for the exclusive use of the addressed parties. Without written approval, we assume no
responsibility to other parties regarding this report. Our evaluation, analyses and recommendations may
not be appropriate for other parties or projects.
E.4. Standard of Care
In performing its services, Braun Intertec used that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under
similar circumstances by reputable members of its profession currently practicing in the same locality.
No warranty, express or implied, is made.
Appendix
2625.13S89°56'28"E1631.34S00°18'22"W2630.96N89°39'13"E1649.99S00°30'14"WHATTRICKINVESTMENTS,LLCPIDNO.13-00300-011-2598.98ACRESSOUTHLINEOFTHESW1/4OFSEC.346060RIGHT-OF-WAYLINE1649.58CENTERLINEESTABLISHEDBYPIPELINECONSTRUCTIONASFIELDLOCATED11-18-0860FOOTWIDEEASEMENTPERBOOK268OFDEEDSATPAGES518-519LOCATIONOF8"PROPANEGASLINE
889.10737.49FIELDDRIVEAGRICULTURALFIELDEDGEOFBITUMINOUSROADC.S.A.H.NO.23 CEDAR AVENUEGASMARKERSCEDARAVENUEGGGG GC
1
0
0
9
3
2
.0
0
I
P
101932.00IP
1
0
6
9
3
2
.0
0
I
PFUTURELOT2-8.23AC.PROPOSED150,000SFWAREHOUSEW/4,500SFOFFICE39 TRUCK SPACES35TRAILERSPACES40'SETBACK
FFE=946.25TRUCK SERVICE ELEV =942.25 222NDSTREETWFUTURELOT3-7.97AC.PROPOSED78,000SFWAREHOUSEW/1,000SFOFFICE21 TRUCK SPACES
FFE=946.25TRUCK SERVICE E LEV =942.25
10' SETBACK 260.0'300.0'STORMWATERCEDARAVENUEROWDEDICATION(0.91AC)PROPERTYLINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINEPROPERTY LINE LOT1-18.87AC.PROPOSED280,800SFWAREHOUSEW/12,000SFOFFICEFFE=946.50OUTLOTB-20.05AC.FUTUREEXTENSIONTRUCKSERVICEELEV=942.5010TRAILERSPACESOUTLOTA-53.07AC.STORMWATEREMERGENCYACCESSDRIVE40'SETBACKPROPERTYLINEPROPERTYLINEST-7ST-9ST-18Sheet:ofFig:ProjectNo:B1611095DrawnBy:DateDrawn:CheckedBy:LastModified:1/10/17Scale:F:\2016\B1611095.dwg,Geotech,1/10/2017 7:07:40 PM
DrawingNo:BaseDwgProvidedBy:SOIL BORING LOCATION SKETCH
GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION
LAUNCH PROPERTIES - LAKEVILLE
NORTHEAST OF CEDAR AVENUE AND 225TH STREET
LAKEVILLE, MINNESOTAB16110951
"=200'JAG11/28/16SBMFAX(952)995-2020PH.(952)995-2000Minneapolis,MN5543811001HampshireAvenueSDENOTESAPPROXIMATELOCATIONOFSTANDARDPENETRATIONTESTBORING0SCALE:1"=200'200'100'N
17
18
13
11
7
7
An open triangle in the
water level (WL) column
indicates the depth at
which groundwater was
first observed while
drilling. Groundwater
levels fluctuate.
11
FILL
FILL
SP
FILL: Lean Clay, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil Fill)
FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, trace organics,
trace bituminous, dark brown, moist to wet.
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, brown, waterbearing, loose to medium
dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 7 1/2 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
937.7
932.2
922.7
1.0
6.5
16.0
12/5/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-1 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-1
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
938.7
Depth
feet
0.0
15
13
12
48
15
9
15
13
FILL
FILL
SP-
SM
FILL: Silt, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil Fill)
FILL: Sandy Lean Clay, trace Gravel, dark brown to
brown, moist to wet.
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, brown, waterbearing, loose to dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 7 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
940.8
932.8
925.8
1.0
9.0
16.0
12/5/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-2 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-2
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
941.8
Depth
feet
0.0
8
9
16
15
CL
SP-
SM
SP-
SM
SANDY LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-grained,
brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 10 feet
then waterbearing, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 10 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
942.4
936.4
932.4
1.0
7.0
11.0
12/5/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-3 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-3
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
943.4
Depth
feet
0.0
6
8
21
18
13
15
CL
SP-
SM
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, brown, moist, loose to medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, brown, waterbearing, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 12 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
943.6
932.8
928.8
1.2
12.0
16.0
12/8/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-4 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-4
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
944.8
Depth
feet
0.0
6
18
18
15
17
17
13
910
CL
SP-
SM
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, brown, moist to 10 feet then
waterbearing, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 10 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
942.4
939.6
922.6
1.2
4.0
21.0
12/8/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-5 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-5
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
943.6
Depth
feet
0.0
7
6
6
7
7
5
5
CL
SM
SP-
SM
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel,
brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, light brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, brown, moist to 10 feet then
waterbearing, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 10 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
941.6
939.6
933.6
921.6
1.0
3.0
9.0
21.0
12/7/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-6 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-6
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
942.6
Depth
feet
0.0
4
8
12
9
9
11
6
CL
SP-
SM
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, brown, moist, very loose to loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, moist to 12 1/2 then waterbearing, loose
to medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 12 1/2 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
943.0
937.0
923.0
1.0
7.0
21.0
12/8/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-7 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-7
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
944.0
Depth
feet
0.0
8
17
18
12
6
15
10
CL
SP-
SM
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, brown, moist to 10 feet then
waterbearing, loose to medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 10 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
942.4
939.4
922.4
1.0
4.0
21.0
12/8/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-8 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-8
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
943.4
Depth
feet
0.0
5
8
15
14
CL
SP-
SM
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, brown, moist to 10 feet then
waterbearing, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 10 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
941.5
935.5
931.5
1.0
7.0
11.0
12/5/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-9 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-9
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
942.5
Depth
feet
0.0
8
7
10
10
13
9
6
2413
CL
SC
SM
SP-
SM
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
CLAYEY SAND, trace Gravel, brown, moist, medium.
(Glacial Till)
SILTY SAND, fine- to medium-grained, trace Gravel,
brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 10 feet
then waterbearing, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium- to
coarse-grained, brown, waterbearing, loose to medium
dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 10 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
940.7
938.9
936.9
929.9
920.9
1.2
3.0
5.0
12.0
21.0
12/6/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-10 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-10
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
941.9
Depth
feet
0.0
7
13
17
15
14
20
14
CL
SP-
SM
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, brown, moist to 12 1/2 feet then
waterbearing, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 12 1/2 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
942.2
939.2
922.2
1.0
4.0
21.0
12/8/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-11 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-11
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
943.2
Depth
feet
0.0
7
8
12
14
9
11
7
CL
SP-
SM
SP
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist to 10 feet
then waterbearing, loose to medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium- to
coarse-grained, brown, waterbearing, loose to medium
dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, brown, waterbearing, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 10 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
940.7
929.7
923.7
920.7
1.0
12.0
18.0
21.0
12/8/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-12 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-12
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
941.7
Depth
feet
0.0
6
16
17
14
CL
SP-
SM
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, loose
to medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium- to
coarse-grained, brown, waterbearing, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 10 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
940.7
932.7
930.7
1.0
9.0
11.0
12/6/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-13 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-13
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
941.7
Depth
feet
0.0
7
8
15
8
10
14
6
CL
SP-
SM
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose to
medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium- to
coarse-grained, brown, waterbearing, loose to medium
dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 10 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
940.5
932.5
920.5
1.0
9.0
21.0
12/6/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-14 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-14
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
941.5
Depth
feet
0.0
8
4
6
6
4
5
5
912
CL
SP-
SM
SP
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, brown, moist to 10 feet then
waterbearing, very loose to loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium- to
coarse-grained, brown, waterbearing, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 10 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
940.1
937.1
927.1
920.1
1.0
4.0
14.0
21.0
12/7/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-15 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-15
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
941.1
Depth
feet
0.0
6
10
12
17
13
15
8
CL
SP-
SM
SP
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, light brown, moist to 12 1/2 feet then
waterbearing, loose to medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium- to
coarse-grained, brown, waterbearing, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 12 1/2 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
941.6
937.6
924.6
921.6
1.0
5.0
18.0
21.0
12/7/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-16 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-16
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
942.6
Depth
feet
0.0
8
14
12
12
8
9
7
CL
SP-
SM
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, light brown, moist, loose
to medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium- to
coarse-grained, brown, waterbearing, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 12 1/2 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
941.4
930.4
921.4
1.0
12.0
21.0
12/7/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-17 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-17
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
942.4
Depth
feet
0.0
16
13
20
15
11
13
9
CL
SP-
SM
SP
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, light brown, moist to 12 1/2 feet then
waterbearing, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium- to
coarse-grained, brown, waterbearing, loose to medium
dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 12 1/2 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
941.6
938.6
928.6
921.6
1.0
4.0
14.0
21.0
12/7/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-18 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-18
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
942.6
Depth
feet
0.0
11
19
15
15
CL
SP-
SM
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, light brown, moist,
medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water not observed with 9 1/2 feet of hollow stem
auger in the ground.
Boring then backfilled.
941.2
931.2
1.0
11.0
12/6/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-19 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-19
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
942.2
Depth
feet
0.0
10
22
18
22
13
7
CL
SP-
SM
SP
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, seams of Lean Clay,
brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, light brown, moist, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium- to
coarse-grained, brown, mosit to 12 1/2 feet then
waterbearing, loose to medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 12 1/2 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
940.9
937.9
932.9
925.9
1.0
4.0
9.0
16.0
12/5/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-20 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-20
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
941.9
Depth
feet
0.0
6
4
4
6
4
6
38
CL
SC
SP-
SM
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
CLAYEY SAND, trace Gravel, brown, wet.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine- to
medium-grained, trace Gravel, brown, moist, very loose
to loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, brown, waterbearing, very loose to loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 10 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
939.8
937.9
931.9
924.9
1.1
3.0
9.0
16.0
12/6/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-21 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-21
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
940.9
Depth
feet
0.0
6
22
23
18
12
9
7
56
CL
SP
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, seams of Lean Clay, brown, moist, loose
to medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium- to
coarse-grained, brown, waterbearing, loose to medium
dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 12 1/2 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
940.6
929.4
920.4
0.8
12.0
21.0
12/6/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-22 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-22
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
941.4
Depth
feet
0.0
5
5
21
16
16
13
12
CL
SP-
SM
SP
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND with SILT, fine-grained, light
brown, moist, loose.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, brown, moist, loose to medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium- to
coarse-grained, brown, waterbearing, medium dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 12 1/2 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
941.2
938.1
932.1
921.1
0.9
4.0
10.0
21.0
12/6/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-23 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-23
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
Symbol
Elev.
feet
942.1
Depth
feet
0.0
8
21
26
23
9
11
8
54
CL
SP
SP
LEAN CLAY, trace roots, dark brown, wet.
(Topsoil)
POORLY GRADED SAND, fine- to medium-grained,
trace Gravel, light brown, moist, loose to medium
dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
POORLY GRADED SAND with GRAVEL, medium- to
coarse-grained, brown, waterbearing, loose to medium
dense.
(Glacial Outwash)
END OF BORING.
Water observed at a depth of 12 1/2 feet while drilling.
Boring then backfilled.
940.3
929.3
920.3
1.0
12.0
21.0
12/6/16 1" = 4'DATE:SCALE:DRILLER:
Tests or NotesWL
ST-24 page 1 of 1
3 1/4" HSA, AutohammerB. Kammermeier
L O G O F B O R I N G
(See Descriptive Terminology sheet for explanation of abbreviations)LOCATION: See attached sketch.
(Soil-ASTM D2488 or D2487, Rock-USACE EM1110-1-2908)
Description of Materials
ST-24
METHOD:
BORING:
BPF
Braun Intertec CorporationB1611095LOG OF BORING N:\GINT\PROJECTS\AX PROJECTS\2016\11095.GPJ BRAUN_V8_CURRENT.GDT 1/11/17 10:17Braun Project B1611095
Geotechnical Evaluation
Launch Properties - Lakeville
NE of Cedar Ave, & 225th Street
Lakeville, Minnesota
P200
%
MC
%Symbol
Elev.
feet
941.3
Depth
feet
0.0
Rev. 9/15
Descriptive Terminology of Soil
Standard D 2487
Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes
(Unified Soil Classification System)
a. Based on the material passing the 3-inch (75mm) sieve.
b. If field sample contained cobbles or boulders, or both, add “with cobbles or boulders or both” to group name.
c. Cu = D60/D10 C c = (D30)2
D10 x D60
d. If soil contains ≥15% sand, add “with sand” to group name.
e. Gravels with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:
GW -GM well-graded gravel with silt
GW -GC well-graded gravel with clay
GP-GM poorly graded gravel with silt
GP-GC poorly graded gravel with clay
f. If fines classify as CL-ML, use dual symbol GC-GM or SC-SM.
g. If fines are organic, add “with organic fines: to group name.
h. If soil contains ≥15% gravel, add “with gravel” to group name.
i. Sand with 5 to 12% fines require dual symbols:
SW -SM well-graded sand with silt
SW -SC well-graded sand with clay
SP-SM poorly graded sand with silt
SP-SC poorly graded sand with clay
j. If Atterberg limits plot in hatched area, soil is a CL-ML, silty clay.
k. If soil contains 10 to 29% plus No. 200, add “with sand” or “with gravel” whichever is predominant.
l. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly sand, add “sandy” to group name.
m. If soil contains ≥ 30% plus No. 200, predominantly gravel, add “gravelly” to group name.
n. PI ≥ 4 and plots on or above “A” line.
o. PI < 4 or plots below “A” line.
p. PI plots on or above “A” lines.
q. PI plots below “A” line.
Laboratory Tests
DD Dry density, pcf OC Organic content, %
WD Wet density, pcg S Percent of saturation, %
MC Natural moisture content, % SG Specific gravity
LL Liquid limit, % C Cohesion, psf
PL Plastic limits, % Ø Angle of internal friction
PI Plasticity index, % qu Unconfined compressive strength, psf
P200 % passing 200 sieve qp Pocket penetrometer strength, tsf
Particle Size Identification
Boulders................. over 12”
Cobbles ................. 3” to 12”
Gravel
Coarse ........... 3/4” to 3”
Fine ................ No. 4 to 3/4”
Sand
Coarse ........... No. 4 to No. 10
Medium .......... No. 10 to No. 40
Fine ................ No. 40 to No. 200
Silt ......................... <No. 200, PI< 4 or below
“A” line
Clay ...................... <No. 200, PI > 4 and on
or about “A” line
Relative Density of Cohesionless Soils
Very Loose ............. 0 to 4 BPF
Loose ..................... 5 to 10 BPF
Medium dense ....... 11 to 30 PPF
Dense .................... 31 to 50 BPF
Very dense ............. over 50 BPF
Consistency of Cohesive Soils
Very soft................. 0 to 1 BPF
Soft ........................ 2 to 3 BPF
Rather soft ............. 4 to 5 BPF
Medium .................. 6 to 8 BPF
Rather stiff ............. 9 to 12 BPF
Stiff ........................ 13 to 16 BPF
Very stiff ................. 17 to 30 BPF
Hard ....................... over 30 BPF
Drilling Notes
Standard penetration test borings were advanced by 3 1/4”
or 6 1/4” ID hollow-stem augers, unless noted otherwise.
Jetting water was used to clean out auger prior to sampling
only where indicated on logs. All samples were taken with
the standard 2” OD split-tube samples, except where noted.
Power auger borings were advanced by 4” or 6” diameter
continuous flight, solid-stern augers. Soil classifications and
strata depths were inferred from disturbed samples augered
to the surface, and are therefore, somewhat approximate.
Hand auger borings were advanced manually with a 1 1/2”
or 3 1/4” diameter auger and were limited to the depth from
which the auger could be manually withdrawn.
BPF: Numbers indicate blows per foot recorded in standard
penetration test, also known as “N” value. The sampler was
set 6” into undisturbed soil below the hollow-stem auger.
Driving resistances were then counted for second and third
6” increments, and added to get BPF. Where they differed
significantly, they are reported in the following form: 2/12 for
the second and third 6” increments, respectively.
WH: WH indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight
of hammer and rods alone; driving not required.
WR: WR indicates the sampler penetrated soil under weight
of rods alone; hammer weight, and driving not required.
TW: TW indicates thin-walled (undisturbed) tube sample.
Note: All tests were run in general accordance with
applicable ASTM standards.
ML or OL
Feasibility Report
222nd Street and Utility Improvement Project
City Project No. 17-07
APPENDIX F
Launch Park First Addition Final Plat