The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9B Maple Lane, Mushtown, Panama Improvement Project 04 pxro� ti � v 4646 Dakota Street SE Prior Lake, MN 55372 �S�� CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE JANUARY 27, 2014 AGENDA #: 9B PREPARED SENG THONGVANH, PROJECT ENGINEER BY: PRESENTED SENG THONGVANH AND LARRY POPPLER BY: AGENDA CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ORDERING THE MAPLE LANE, ITEM: MUSHTOWN ROAD, AND PANAMA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT PRO- JECT (PROJECT #14-011) AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICA- TIONS DISCUSSION: I ntroduction The purpose of this agenda item is to consider approval of a resolution ordering the Maple Lane, Mushtown Road, and Panama Avenue Improvement Project and the preparation of plans and specifications. A super majority (4/5) is needed to approve the resolution. If this project proceeds, the City intends on using the M.S. Chapter 429 process as this process applies to all projects that will be financed in whole or in part through special assessments or bond proceeds. Historv Each year the City reconstructs street segments that are scheduled for reconstruc- tion as part of its Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and have exceeded their use- ful design life. The City uses the Capital Improvement Program and its Pavement Management Program to plan for infrastructure improvements and the financing for capital improvements. At its September 9, 2013 meeting the City Council adopted Resolution 13-126 authorizing staff to prepare a Feasibility Report for the Maple Lane, Mushtown Road, and Panama Avenue Improvement Project as outlined in the CIP. The Maple Lane / Mushtown Road / Panama Avenue neighborhood is considered in the report and includes improvements to Maple Acres, O'Rourke Addition, Parts of S 11, T 114, R 22 and Parts of S 2, T 114, R 22. These properties were platted and developed in the 1950's and 1960's. A map of the project area (Figure 1) is included in the Feasibility Report. The proposed improvements include street reconstruction, sewer and water construction, storm sewer, storm water quality, concrete curb and gutter, and appurtenant work. The Feasibility Report also includes total estimated costs, preliminary assessment amounts, and a project financing summary. Also in- cluded in the report are design criteria, estimates and information on watermain, san- itary sewer, storm sewer, and streets. Details on each can be found in the Feasibility Report. On November 12, 2013, the City Council accepted the feasibility report and sched- uled the public hearing. The public hearing was held on December 9, 2013. Staff presented the original pro- ject plus three (3) options prior to the public hearing. A dozen or so residents spoke at the public hearing in opposition to the project. While it was recognized that Mush- town Road is in poor condition, the cost for the project as a whole was the major point of objection. The City Council tabled their discussion after closing the public hearing. The City Council communicated support for Option 3. Therefore, staff has reflected the estimated savings of approximately $10,000 in the overall project costs and esti- mated special assessments included in this report. The City Council also asked for the following additional information be brought back on January 27th, 2014 before rendering a decision on whether to order the improve- ments: 1. Representative Appraisals 2. Options to reduce project assessment 3. Septic System Credit information 4. Information on Age and Condition of the Existing Septic Systems on the Pro- ject 5. Additional Traffic Information for Mushtown Road Each of these items is addressed below. Current Circumstances Appraisals Representative appraisals were completed. The appraisals measured the added benefit of completing the project for 5 properties in the project area. We carefully se- lected the properties to include one on the lake on Panama, one off the lake on Pan- ama, one on Maple Lane, one on Mushtown Road, and the final one is a commercial property on Mushtown Road. We utilized an appraisal firm which has e�ensive ex- perience in property appraisal for this purpose. They understand that their profes- sional opinions as to value are likely to be questioned in an appeals or court pro- ceeding. The benefit appraisals completed for this project support the proposed as- sessment in all but the one commercial property. This commercial property is cur- rently assigned three units for street and storm sewer. In order to comply with State Statute the City must reduce the assessment for this commercial property by either reducing the unit street assessment or reducing the assigned units for this property. For obvious reasons the appraisal information is confidential. Assessment Reduction Measures A fair amount of cost for this project comes from the utility extension along Panama Avenue. Not only does this segment of pipe require easement acquisition, but be- cause of Crystal Lake, the number of properties fronting this segment of pipe is mini- mal. The Comprehensive Plan suggests that, eventually this pipe will serve proper- ties south of 174th Street which are presently in the township but not in the orderly annexation area. A contribution from the Trunk Fund could be considered by the City Council since this pipe will serve a greater area than this specific project. Calculating the ease- ment and pipe installation cost for an 880-foot segment of the sewer and water along 2 , Crystal Lake amounts is an estimated $167,000. If the Trunk Fund were used to fund this segment of pipe and easement, the utility assessment is reduced by ap- proximately $4,700 for each of the 38 properties in the project. These costs are based on_a preliminarv enaineer's estimate and would likely chanae once proiect plans and bids have been received. The project bid would dictate the overall proiect cost and assessment amounts. If a longer segment of this pipe were considered trunk (i.e. to the end of the project on Panama) then as a policy matter the City Council could devote greater trunk funds toward this project. Such detailed analysis should await completion of the plans and receipt of bids when costs are better defined. Since Mushtown Road is a collector street within the City's roadway system, staff has analyzed project bid items further for those items that could be considered more of a regional roadway improvement and therefore would be funded through the Street Oversize Fund as well as the Water Quality Fund. Although such detailed analysis is completed after the completion of plans and receipt of bids, assessment rate concerns have advanced the process. In review of the cost estimates, Water Quality Fund items would increase by $12,588 to $42,588. The Street Oversize Fund would increase by an estimated $75,034 to $131,186. The increase contribu- tion of these funds would lower the total assessment amount as well as the general tax levy. The additional contributions from the Water Quality Fund and Street Over- size Fund would reduce the street & storm assessment by an estimated amount of $1,300 per unit. Septic System Credits Since this area was annexed into the City from Spring Lake as a part of the Orderly Annexation Agreement, they are eligible for septic system credits. Based on a re- view of the existing septic system in this area, the project can anticipate as much as $46,500 in credits for specific properties on this project if all the eligible systems are compliant. Property owners requesting such credits would be required to have a sep- tic system inspection accomplished at a cost of $300 to $500 per property and sub- mit the results to the City and the County. The appropriate credits per property would be calculated at that time. The tax levy would be utilized to fund these credits. ( Age and Condition of Existing Septic Systems City Staff met with Mr. Peter Schmitt, Scott County to discuss the age and condition of the existing septic systems in this area. Mr. Schmitt has provided a memo detail- ing their experience with systems in this area (see attached).They have reviewed their septic system files in greater detail. They do not have information on all septic systems as some were likely constructed before the County began keeping records. In other cases there may be no records as permits were not taken. Their records show the following: 1. Most systems were installed after 1978. 2. Septic systems have two components, a tank and a drain field. 3. Borings are the most conclusive way to determine if septic system drain field is functioning. 4. All septic systems in the project area are in the shoreland area which means they must have three feet of vertical separation between the saturated soil and the bottom of the drain field. Because this is more strict separation re- quirement it is believed that many of the systems installed since 1978 would 3 fail this requirement. This requirement is intended to protect nearby water features. 5. Fourteen systems on record have failed a compliance inspection or are known or suspected of having non-compliant tanks. Since writing the memo on this topic Mr. Schmitt has identified two more. 6. Three of the systems have already exceeded the deadline for correction. Two others have future deadlines to make corrections. 7. The County has delayed enforcement action on the three because they un- derstood that municipal utilities are imminent. 8. The number of noncompliant systems will increase considering that 3 /4 of the systems are over 20 years old and a good portion of those some are over 30 years old. 9. Septic systems require setbacks including 50' from domestic wells, 10' from property lines, 20' from any structure, 150' from any natural environmental lake like Crystal. 10. Many of the lots in this area are small and recognizing that contours must also be considered, locating a new septic system will be difficult to say the least. 11. Variances are possible, but costly, time consuming and undesirable given the mission is to promote public health and natural resources. 12. 9 of the 14 systems known or suspected of being noncompliant are either partly or totally within the 150' setback to Crystal Lake. Maps have been sub- mitted and attached to illustrate this point. 13. Residents have claimed that when their system was pumped they received a certificate of compliance. The form they receive is a County form for the sole purpose of which is to communicate to the county and other concerned par- ties that pumping of the system has occurred. The form is not a certificate of compliance, it is simply a record of pumping. 14. Scott County staff supports the project as proposed. Mr. Schmitt and an associate have agreed to be present at the City Council meeting Monday night to respond to questions. Mushtown Road Traffic Mushtown Road is a major collector as designated on the City's Comprehensive Plan. Current average daily traffic is 940 vehicles per day. When the nearby Ponds Athletic Complex or Thomas Ryan Parks are used for large tournaments, the aver- age daily traffic increases to an estimated 1,890 vehicles per day. Speeds on Mush- town Road are also a concern as the average speed exceeds the 30 mph speed limit. The project includes traffic calming measures to help address this concern. Property Acquisition Property acquisition on public improvement projects can be a long process. Property acquisition services are a special service which cannot be completed by City Staff. In anticipation of the project, the City solicited pricing from WSB and Associates for property acquisition services. WSB and Associates recently performed property ac- quisition services for the Arcadia lmprovement Project and the Welcome Avenue Im- provement Project. WSB and Associates provided a quote in the amount of $24,020 for these services. The City has evaluated the quote and believes the costs to be reasonable. Of course each dollar the City spends for property is tacked onto the project and paid through the funding sources for the project including assessments. 4 Conclusion In summary, the project is feasible from an engineering and economic standpoint. If the preparation of the plans and specifications is approved, the work will be com- pleted by City staff. Typical City projects do not provide for the numerous benefits that this project pro- vides. Many times projects are completed only to address only one issue such as roadway deterioration. From a staff perspective, the merits of completing this project are detailed below: 1. Road Deterioration - Mushtown Road and Maple Lane are in dire need of re- construction due to their deteriorated condition. Maintenance of a roadway in this condition provides limited value. The roads require complete replacement and not a short term overlay solution. 2. Safetv - Speed studies suggest 85th percentile speeds exceeding the 30 mph speed limit on this collector route. Enforcement will help but road improve- ments are the most dependable and cost effective method of addressing this issue day in and day out for the long term. We recognize though that there is no perfect solution. 3. Sanitary Sewer - The memo provided by Scott County regarding septic sys- tems suggests that the project be done due to the conditions of the septic systems in this area. If the project is further delayed the conclusion of the County is that more systems than the three which are already delinquent will occur. Given that the minimum cost of a new system is $15,000 these prop- erty owners will most certainly oppose a future project if they make correc- tions to their septic systems. 4. Water Qualitv - Improvements to the water quality of Crystal Lake which is tributary to Prior Lake. Water quality improvements include the proposed storm water features as well as removal of possible failed septic systems. There is some possibility that the water quality fund could make a contribution to this project. Further analysis is necessary. 5. Watermain — Municipal water extension provides fire protection and continu- ally tested domestic water service to homes. 6. Utility Extension - The extension of utilities south on Panama Avenue will pro- vide for future extension to the south consistent with the City's 2030 Compre- hensive Plan. One of the goals of the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan is to complete projects out- lined in the City Capital Improvement Plan. A primary purpose of City governance is to provide municipal services and safe roadways. Under the Community Assets sec- tion of the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan the following paragraph can be found: "Quality infrastructure (municipal utilities, parks, building, roadways, etc.) is the essential capital cornerstone of a great and vibrant community. Such infrastruo- ture must be comp/eted in a time/y manner using specifications which empha- size longevity and cost effectiveness. Once installed, the City must maintain these assets to maximize productive life. The interconnection of infrastructure with neighbors is desirab/e to protect against system failures and improve cost effectiveness. " s Considering the merits of this project and the City's overall guiding documents, the 2030 Vision and Strategic Plan, and 2030 Comprehensive Plan, this project should be completed. ISSUES: The delay in ordering this project will have an effect on the schedule for completion. If the City Council proceeds tonight, a portion of the work can be built in 2014, but it is unlikely all the work can be performed. Property acquisition can take upwards of 9 months. Since the City is looking to acquire easement for the utilities along Panama Avenue, this segment of the project would likely be delayed until 2015. If the project is ordered, City Staff will focus on swift design of the project for bidding and work with a consultant to begin easement negotiations. The Assessment Review Committee met on five occasions at which time all or some of the following issues were discussed: The Assessment Review Committee met the week of January 20th, at which time they recommended the use of the Trunk Fund (based on option 3) to fund an 880 foot segment of utilities along Panama Avenue. As discussed above, this would re- duce the utility assessment by approximately $4,700 per property. The Trunk Fund would contribute an additional $167,000 toward the project. In addition to this the Assessment Review Committee recommended additional contribution from the Street Oversize Fund and Water Quality Fund for the Mushtown Road street im- provements as discussed above. This additional change would reduce the street as- sessment by an estimated $1,300. Assessment Map The Assessment Review Committee recommends assessing the properties as shown on the assessment map but believes that the City will need to closely exam- ine the use of trunk funds to facilitate service to this area as well as property to the south. Watermain and Sanitarv Sewer As a first time improvement, pursuant to the Assessment Policy, the watermain and sanitary sewer will be assessed at 100% of the project costs subject to the com- ments above. Street and Storm Sewer Reconstruction Pursuant to the Assessment Policy, the street and storm sewer reconstruction should be assessed at up to 40% of the total project cost against the benefiting properties. The remaining amounts should be recovered through the general ad valorem property tax. Assessment Method The Assessment Review Committee recommends the unit method of assessment due to the fact that the lots in the project area are of similar size and/or value. The estimated assessment rate is proposed at $24,362 / unit for utilities and $11,768 / unit for street improvements on Maple Lane and Mushtown Road. Due to the long stretch of pipe on Panama Avenue which is necessary to extend water and sewer to the Panama residents, the Assessment Review Committee discussed additional funding sources to lower the overall utility assessments. 6 Review Lift Station Options As a way to reduce easement acquisition and reduce cost, the Assessment Review Committee asked for further analysis of a lift station option. Two lift station options were analyzed. Both options ended up costing more money, raising the assessment rate. A third option was reviewed which reduces watermain and sanitary sewer pipe but increases necessary easements. At this point in the process, a resolution ordering the improvements and plans and specifications is before the City Council. Once the design is complete and bids are received, the City Council will have the opportunity to decide if the project should move forward or determine if additional funding changes are is warranted. Given the level of property owner interest, we will conduct a neighborhood meeting once the design plans are complete to solicit input. Once bids are received and the Assessment Review Committee has evaluated the use of alternative funding sources then the special assessment hearing will be conducted at which time the property owners will have an opportunity to share their perspectives and confirm their intent to appeal the proposed assessment if desired. FINANCIAL The Maple Lane, Mushtown Road, and Panama Avenue Street Improvement Project IMPACT: was originally proposed to be financed by Special Assessments, tax levy, Street Over- size Fund and Water Quality Fund. The following table reflects the original funding sources and amounts as well as the revised sources and amounts based on Option 3 and the alternative sources previously mentioned: Funding Source Original Option 3* Change Assessments $1,217,294 $1,001,341 ($215,953) Street Oversize Fund $56,152 $131,186 $75,034 Water Quality Fund $30,000 $42,588 $12,588 Tax Levy $437,300 $388,384 ($48,916) Trunk Fund $0 $167,047 $167,047 Estimated Project Total Cost $1,740,746 $1,730,546 ($10,200) *with alternative funding sources. ALTERNA- 1. Approve Resolution 14-XX ordering the Maple Lane, Mushtown Road, Panama TIVES: Avenue Improvement project and preparation of plans and specifications. 2. Deny this item for a specific reason and provide staff with direction. 3. Table this item until some date in the future. RECOM- Staff recommends alternative #1. MENDED MO- TION: 7 �4 PRIp �� . U 4646 Dakota Street SE ' Prior Lake, MN 55372 RESOLUTION 14-xxx ORDERING IMPROVEMENTS AND PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR MAPLE LANE, MUSHTOWN ROAD, AND PANAMA AVENUE (PROJECT #14•011); FINANCING THE MAPLE LANE, MUSHTOWN ROAD AND PANAMA AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO BE UNDERTAKEN BY THE CITY AND ESTABLISHING COMPLIANCE WITH REIMBURSEMENT BOND REGULATIONS UNDER THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE Motion By: Second By: WHEREAS, the Prior Lake City Council on its own initiative has determined that it desires to complete the Public Improvement Project to Maple Lane, Mushtown Road, and Panama Avenue; and WHREAS, on November 12, 2013; the City Council adopted Resolution 13-168 accepting the Feasibility Report and calling for a Public Hearing to be held on the Maple Lane, Mushtown Road, and Panama Avenue Improvement Project which includes sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer, aggregate base, concrete curb and gutter, bituminous surfacing, and appurtenant work; and WHEREAS, ten days mailed notice and two weeks published notice of the hearing was given, and the hearing was held on the 9th day of December, 2013, at which time all persons desiring to be heard were given an opportunity to be heard thereon; and WHERES, since the project was initiated by the City Council it must be approved by 4/5ths vote in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 429.031 Subdivision 1(fl; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA as follows: 1. The recitals set forth above are incorporated herein. 2. Such improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible as detailed in the feasibility report. 3. The City Engineer is hereby authorized to prepare plans and specifications for the improvements delineated in City Council Resolution 13-168 adopted on November 12, 2013 and by the required statutory 4/5ths vote does hereby order the project. 4. The City Engineer is hereby designated as the Engineer for these improvements and is authorized to record engineering expenses in the Construction Fund (#501-48378). 5. The Mayor and City Manager are authorized to execute the City's Standard Professional Services Contract with WSB and Associates for property acquisition Services for the Maple Lane, Mushtown Road, and Panama Avenue construction project for a base price in the amount of $24,020 and the unit pricing rates shown in the proposal and attached to the City's Standard Professional Services Contract. Funding for these engineering services will be drawn from the Construction Fund Account #501-48378- 505. 6. The Engineer shall prepare plans and specifications for the making of such improvements for Maple Lane, Mushtown Road, and Panama Avenue. 7. The City Council authorizes the following preliminary funding sources and corresponding transfers to the Construction Fund for the project: Funding Source Option 3 Assessments $1,001,341 Street Oversize Fund $131,186 Water Quality Fund $42,588 Tax Levy $388,384 Trunk Fund $167,047 Project Total Cost $1,730,546 8. The City has determined to make a declaration of official intent ("Declaration") to reimburse certain estimated costs for this project from proceeds of bonds in accordance with the Internal Revenue Service Reimbursement Regulations (Treasury Reg.1.150-2). 9. The City may declare other separate statements of reimbursement intent in connection with specific public improvements projects as they are initiated under Minnesota Statutes Chapters 429 and 444, or for other capital projects, with the understanding that such additional declarations of reimbursement intent will supplement this resolution. 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. 10. 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 the commencement of construction. 11. 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 Projects and the principal amount of the bonds 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. 12. This Declaration is intended to constitute a Declaration of the Official Intent for the purposes of the Reimbursement Regulations. 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2014. YES NO Hedber Hedber Keene Keene McGuire McGuire Morton Morton Souku Souku Frank Boyles, City Manager 3 SCOTT COUNTY ' COMMUNITY SERVICES DIVISION � � °� ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH & INSPECTIONS �CD� 200 FOURTH AVENUE WEST SHAKOPEE, MN 55379-1220 (952) 496-8475 Fax: (952) 496-8496 Website: www.co.scott.mn.us January 17, 2014 Larry Poppler and Seng Thongvanh Prior Lake City Hall 4646 Dakota St SE Prior Lake MN 55372 Dear Mr. Poppler and Mr. Thongvanh: This is a follow-up to our meeting on December 19, 2013, where we discussed Prior Lake's proposed project on Mushtown Road, Maple Lane and Panama Avenue. The homes in that area are currently on septic systems, and the proposal is to connect them to municipal sanitary sewer and water as part of the project. Scott County supports this project. Since that meeting, we have reviewed our septic system files for that area in more detail. We do not have records for all systems because some were likely installed before the County began to require permits (early 1970s), or they may have been illegally installed without a permit. Our records show that about 3/4 of the systems were installed since 1978. Most of those systems should have septic tanks that would pass a compliance inspection. However, it is not possible to determine if the drainfields would be in compliance by simply reviewing our files. That determination could only be made by having a qualified State-licensed inspector check each septic system on-site, and that usually requires soil borings. Soil borings are done to find the elevation of periodically saturated soil (limiting layer) and whether that layer has the required vertical separation needed between it and the bottom of the drainfield (usually trenches). The limiting layer is now more likely to be found closer to the surface than it was in past decades as advances have been made in how to "read" soils. This more strict interpretation results in greater protection of ground and surface waters. However, because septic systems here are required to have three feet of vertical separation because they are located in a shoreland area, that means that many of the systems installed since 1978 would likely fail this separation requirement and, therefore, be considered non-compliant. We already have 14 systems on record that have failed a compliance inspection, or are known or suspected to have non-compliant tanks. Three of those systems are already past the required County due date for having to be replaced. Two of the three failed a compliance inspection for having unsealed tanks (commonly referred to as cesspools or leaching pits). The other owner pumps regularly to prevent a sewage discharge because she has no room for a standard septic system. That person is paying at least $1,800 per year to have her tank pumped. If that were to continue over 20 years, it would amount to $36,000 — and that assumes that the cost of pumping would not increase. Unfortunately, we are certain that others will be in a similar situation in the not too distant future. The County has delayed enforcement action on those three homeowners because we had been informed by Prior Lake staff that the lots would be provided with municipal sewer service as part of this project. If those homes are not connected to municipal sewer, the County would likely be forced to take action in 2014. An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer Page 2 Furthermore, the number of non-compliant systems will only increase with time as they begin to fail (by discharging to the ground surface or lake, or by backing up into the home) or as more and more homeowners have compliance inspections done as a result of a property sale. Scott County does not require a compliance inspection for a property sale, but it is often required by the buyer or the lender. Some homeowners that fail a compliance inspection ask us if their system can simply be fixed, but that is only very rarely the case. For example, for old-style tanks that are not sealed, there is no way to fix the tank, it has to be replaced in order to meet current state code requirements (and pumping the tank does not make it be "in compliance"). Likewise, when it is determined that a drainfield is non-compliant because it is too deep, there is no way to make it compliant without starting over. With roughly 3 /. of the systems over 20 years old, and over %2 of the systems over 30 years old, it won't be long before this becomes a major problem. However, what we consider even more important than the age of the systems or how many would pass a compliance inspection is whether the homeowners have the physical lot space available to replace their septic systems. For planning purposes, the County considers 5,000 square feet to be the area needed to replace the typical septic system. The problem is that most of these lots are small by today's standards, considering that the County requires new lots to be at least one to two acres minimum size to build a new home with a septic system and well. Not only are the lots relatively small, but much of the land will not be available for a new septic because of these required setbacks: - 50 feet from individual drinking wells; - 10 feet from property lines; � - 20 feet from any structure; - 150 feet from a Natural Environment lake (Crystal Lake). In addition to the setbacks, systems have to be located on contour and generally cannot be constructed on disturbed soil, in low areas or swales, or on top of an existing septic system. In most cases, a setback variance is possible, but the variance process will often be costly and time consuming for the homeowner. For example, 9 of the 14 systems known or suspected to be non- compliant as discussed above are either partially or entirely within the required 150-foot septic system setback to Crystal Lake. We anticipate that some property owners will not be able to locate a standard septic system on their lot regardless of variances, while others would have to install alternative type systems that would be considerably more expensive — possibly up to tens of thousands of dollars to construct, operate and maintain. Bottom line is we are very concerned that many homeowners in the project area will struggle to find a suitable area to replace their septic systems when that becomes necessary, which it will. We have enclosed several maps that show the septic system setbacks in the project area. One map shows the entire project area, and it is only meant to give a general understanding of the setback problem. For example, wells were assumed to be on the road side of the house (near the house), even though some are surely located elsewhere. The other two maps provide a more close-up example look at several lots. The wells and septics on those maps were located based on the information we have in our files, but again are not meant to provide exact An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer Page 3 measurements. Also, remember that just because the lot is not taken up by a setback, it does not mean that the area is automatically suitable for a septic system due to the other issues discussed above regarding contours, low areas, and soils that are wet or disturbed. Therefore, because of these concerns, the County is recommending that the City of Prior Lake proceed with the project to provide municipal sanitary sewer and water to this area. Please call me at 952-496-8352 if you have any questions. Sincerely, i�r�� ..-Jt.�t Peter M. Schmitt Environmental Health Supervisor Enclosures An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer / >� / � / i ,� � = � '� "� � � � � � . / ' � % � � �j � i r > > / ' F � i � � �;• • i , ; � i � ` `' ' ., �� , � �, � _ �- � , -� ~ � � , , , � � � � �----,r— -. ---------- ��, � , . ,_ �� . � t �- �,...,,,. .,.,,,,.,....,..,... , � � -- � ---- -- � ,/` , , � --�� ,, �� ,� � � :� � � -� ./. , , , � � , , :r./ , ��.��`.,�� i , �� , � � � , � � , �= i � � � � j� �°� � � EXAMPLE OF � . � � /` � � 5�D0 SQ FEET • //'` � � PROPOSED �,//,� �`.� I SEPTIC SYSTEM : � � � � �.`� ' � � r---£.-------------�'— i � ; / / � ° � / ° , � S S�'>�� --�--�----------�-�-- ---- � � �� ' � � -- � i � / � �; � ----- - // / �`/� % i �,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_ > � __________ - 1 inch = 31 feet � � — - -- - --_w _— O 150' NE Lake setback � � 10' Property Line Setback ' EXAMPLE DIAGRAM OF REQUIRED SEPTIC SYSTEM SETBACKS v�� /�'�� WITH 150' LAKE SETBACK � 20' Building Setback �L. 50' Well Setback / // // , L% L% L/ �} '. Property Line � � sa � � \ ..,. / EXISTING � SEPTIC SYSTEM EXAMPLE OF � 5000 SQ FEET ' ' �� PROPOSED � � � � SEPTIC SYSTEM � � � .. " /� //. . � .x.r:.. . .... /� /�__,. .. � �� > 1 inch = 25 feet � � � 20' Building Setback f �r EXAMPLE DIAGRAM OF REQUIRED SEPTIC SYSTEM SETBACKS � 50' Well Setback p'� �� 10' Property Line Setback p7 �+ �- yi * K �RIVC JE � _.� � I��,�"� �� s.; 3�}'�S°=� �c � a A't �r �p�� .� s ��d��"� � �� w�? �.'��` r.� ��"yi'� _ ,- � , � � , , ' M , � �. - � � 4.�'la:- �`�< N � � � ,,� � � a# � < �vff � Q � \y �� p � -�_ '.�` -� °�, � � O �'��< � ,� ' -�� • �"' >�� a' I �`. ,��, �� .y � � � . � � � 3 � � 4� � .� � �� ! vY+� �" Z ,�_. . �� , � i :' - � �`� � fA'�: � .a'„i�`�° � '�� t : �'� ♦ , r � - � . U k � � � � =� ��,� • �� !; � � 'r� ., .'�- �� . � ° � � ) ; . � � _ " � . � ' �� } q M .d �Y�s�*;� �it �� ,�,k� Q ��" � � , r a,� ` (�,. �, a� � � ,i r �' �` 2 � J .__ � � ' ' . �'� � ;� � �� '� �� .�,. � � � t. # a —__ _ �o ��: ` �:Py� .[ �1 ��. �� 3 � � ' :� .�� _ '� � �� `�� a > .... �t��_` A'— � � � : � � 1 ' w:.� � Q �� ' S}'. "_ ' 4h ,�. . 4 : �`� 5 d4 � `( �. � ' . �t , F� j � �gb°' �.�'� �QO / � , � � �. � 3�` � � ' �� --- r *?^�. � ,.� � �`,�< - � �_� -'��` ;"�j'� s� r �f . :'s.- t�• � ,i r� �ae� � �� v � k � �� ' �... �.5:" - . 9ai1` •. �� \ ' � Tb '- r , F , � � 'a' � „� � �. � � �- � r � � �,� � ♦ / � � � � � � �i �� , # { �' � �' `�' �' � .. ' � �i � ' 3.. � # \ � � � �y � � p � .!' b � ' - .. �,, < � �� . , _ �,.. �+ : a �'��' y , ,� , j : � 1�" � 5 .� h3 �: - , . . ` . _. , � a � a , r j i .. . 'S�� . " � y-� ` F ` � � + I (� .�,� � `��'y� ,,�x�+ � ,� "� tx ,f:. � s .R`` ' �. :♦ , , { t_._. ; � . . , a <, t � �- 1 � a � � ��- � � E E ! "�` �,+'�- r � r s � .�+�` �, � k'� �� "` / �.* � "�� 4' �� ' ' � j d`�`' (j �� s�' I... , ,� �� 4��y tt�� . � . � �� 3 � �P� ` y •. i C_ . � � r ¢�"� 4 � t s�" f �� +.� f . [1� 'f O�� %� y ��' �_� � �� t .� � ��. �, �. s�r �` �' � � ,. �' § �` � t�.�'� , �}� ' O �� ` � �' ,, t-� � � � ; .-.,i �, ,� �� ,��- . _ , . �.�� : ,�� ;� �. ; _ � �, � � � �,>, a � �1 � �: � � ,, ,� � . , � � x ` � �� : �x� �.'� .�� `" � , a � ' f � � �� i _ _. � �� z�� 4 = ^�" +�� y � : 'i s,� � ,,,�,- ,� � a ��. , �° ; "�r u : 'r t 1 r '� � ypg . j ,� + � f r �` r �' � . " . ' � t . � tY , , c �� ` f .2 -^, � 1 � ` j 7';:n , �j ;�,� Jyy'l �:4 /� j'� -1' �3� • �� ' p �� y . "s °�� r �"�•• '� � F '� eY i` � F � Q aF �!� - s a� � y � yt ��s� _ � . ��' r � + r .t3 �` � a � �� ,� t r�� -�,s. [ • �l �-`. �tJ' "�: .. _ � K . � � af�� .�'�' �r�� .. .^�� In,�1 .*� � ° � °`. � + � �; - �� , � � '�'� . �� S �"" r � a� �� {' j * > Y � .._ � #�.� "�A � t ` . X` � P` Y � � R tYS�I � t k ` '�; � ,- O yt t f � ' � � , � � +�' - " . U � � ; �s .` s � � � �,�� s �' r ,, � � „ .. r a -� �_` �_ " �''= k 3.�'$ "� �7 � ` ' 1�} �;$� � � �� . .:: . ' _�, .t .. �� & . � � p ` � ,,. ,�t j ..._ � `9i i _ � 7, : . � "a�r� � °, .� ; �d*� �_ � y ,.. � � ` � � Xs ':� j� � �� - . �... � � t �f a �a$ ~ � • ... . � �'` � �. -� � ��! � � � • y � y F� ,,� � ;i T ^. V s �, y € ��,�� . � a . * �„.. _� a M1 .�#`� v.. / � � ' �� _ x C X � N � � � �� s fR �. � ,.� �r a, �� °s` v � z, .. � �� : g se �� " 4y� �� r� 5 � ��n �' � �' ��, ' � � �°.< . �� . . �� L �, .�}:"°xF!`� �g. }*��` � f��.� �y�� ;.�, / ,� �� :. t. � 9+ j , � �-zN. �. �k- t , ,�• % � � r .,�� . � � �� ai � _ � -�� , , �{� � . ` � ,; . ' . " r E - / �,,� f t . � &. � ^. n ' � d ( / ! .f < £�e r � , , * s � _� . � }n s, T .. .y � . .� .:r��7R .�e"� �. i ,�,! ;", . ... �„5`9 Y � , ec. ....'' �_ dM r: �. . � � �, ��.. - Buildings 20' Building Setback ��' Q 10' Property Line Setback 2 �� EXAMPLE DIAGRAM OF REQUIRED SEPTIC SYSTEM SETBACKS �50 NE Lake Setback � 50' Well Setback O Hydric Soiil E SE y � � ■ a - " � �� _�� ,. �.� : � � � �.. ��' � ��t� .� Ys: M ��1. . ��.��.'��E �f► �� .�' � ��,'� � �� ..�- N ��'�"`' Failec ., �' �=�c �. , � � ' 1�-- a�"�� C e � � � � � �'��' �� p r .---"~ r-�, ``� �� ,� �,� ° r. Q � � � �' ,.�' . T 4 ( O y � • ., � •y E ..e ,�g�� , �, \ � ..ok � �v '� � . � }(' $ � j °� a; � � ��. � `. � 7 � �� 1 �' ..�. ,� rv ,�� m X `�'�� *� ��°" ` � � � �� k i ' �/ v � �`' � Cesspool `' � � ��"� �^� �� Q� ��x �'�'� L � .,,, � � � �- Cesspool �� ` '��-� . '�� .�_ � � ,� � � �, � "'� ; sF ^ �. � �� e �" ' . � �" � � � ` � * � ,� _ _ �� . �V �= � �, � I' , ' � Q � � 7 ��, ;� ,- � ° �" � � � � � � � � - k �� ;�s� �:.i' � � , , Q �_. �� , Failed CI�sep �� ' � a � �� : � � � �, � � ��.;,.��: &., � �� -�� ` � � 1 �� "! ' ---__ Q �: _ � � ' � l� . ri , =� I K , . �� - � � �. Cesspool � � � ° �� ` � 4 � � �_ �....._. , ��"�^;=�' ��',l"� � n�� `�, � . � w f i , �, �r .- " � � a w'� �:�, �` � � : m , . � � � � �" � -� � , � ,,.� , , � �k : �: , . r . � "{ • i � ' �� Y � 3 � f � `� � � � f . t_� ,_ } Y , � � a � �� ;-� , ,: , flw. 'i _ � �-..� � . \ " �� . ,#P��... � ! ,- s 2� , � �. 1 l , �� £��°`� � .� • ! �� Y '"� `%1 } >.'�` ".�'� �.:� � ii F� �, �� „. � / u �. ' �a�' -.� a .; , � �,�+.P `,t, f � � T'� t � �`' �_�,►.. � d •� � � i ''�°'�� Fai led CI sep ��`�� , >� � - � : � t � � r � �` � ° :�� a � . ' �. �, �' " � \ � � ! �' � �' � ��W� � 1 .� , i�'�"" *�° y a; �` A _ � , y �� , �, a ', C2SS�JOOL �, �� ' � �r r . z r -� t,; } �„E �g ��",��.� ��'> �', � � •,�+ ' _ / �J . � i �,' �^t" :� �, ,�'.'� � "� � ` Q,�'� � � � r � �� 5 ",� f's� ,+�'� �,'�'° .� °'�'�� ` f ` �j�� j s }, ��' ��' Cess ool � ��I � ,� , � :, � �` �► & �' � �a >'� p � — I � ��',� Failed CI sep �� _�`� "�� * �'G �� m : I° .� I � �� M. �t-� c ��a � '* �r ��p �, r "� � ' `� �,�� #� �� f ' �t� �` 4 � � . �,1,: 4 ��:'�. .% y Discharge f=--� �,�; � � ,� � �- r� � � Q�� - , � :. I; � I x� �"a�� tar >� '`a� ` a t'�s �` r rx '��, = �� e � �r � � ', � p ' Failed CI sep r—�--I m I �� r'� " 3 .'{� 5� f +r`� � �� t arV f ,�. N l � , �� '� { 4 / l'"- k ' ,r � . ,+R x $ - '' � `� p r�r . � I `� t r i'� s ,*� x s "W y �" ' � lt�'A �/:�: , �� , �4°"' ' #�' :. "€ � f . C2$$ 00� - '� � O } �� ,�,� r: 3 -� :�i �X � =��,�'sp''� � � r ' � � � � � �.� �. n x � ° ��p , r . � r � � ae �ie�4� �� ", ��`Y. . � .5,�� Y � `�,�� r ir r `� � � y'�'�� . � � , , w � �� % t �� C i 's �'�`� �� . � � ' �. � � , �,# .� r x � f � � �} � � � � r ' � r . : � �. . �.� 3 �? . , � ..- ., ,+� ��w � r x � �� " „ � 4 � e . �. I � � � � � �._... ., t `` � ��'_' ' r',r� 3. � ,��'`.�w�.� � rzr� e �� . ��,�'i # F �;. �r '° �� Fniled CI Cess ool }rx ; � +� � � ; � '� � .� � . s "' --- p �;�'�'�*� �, , �'� � ��: �`,�t �';°,,, ,' ; '�� , �',�a��""� , �' �! �. -��.,, r �� 4� > .o.- !P s '�•, t � � �� . �Y � 'e E / }g �i ° . ,. �� e.t � „ r� s .; 3 � - e �` ` �� d� r�� ^ #.�� ' �5'� Y/ 3 . . �,�„� } � � t` � � r ��,„,.�� .°' ,,q� � '. / � � � � �"'�,'�� a', � "' � Y � ' � 'y i .. . _ , , .. ,� �. £ Cesspool ,l� �r � �„Y rs � �� + ��. ° �� "` ��..� � �♦ ds �� ,; Y � , � �� #�' � , �c� , �'` \ �� d ~'��.'� �, r , , . � l w �' .� � �,,, n .g - Buildings 20' Building Setback � EXAMPLE DIAGRAM OF REQUIRED ��o Property Line Setback �' �� SEPTIC SYSTEM SETBACKS �50 NE Lake Setback ;;��a 50' Well Setback O Hydric Soiil Address Saptk Type I�I Dafe Year BuNt Reoent Must Instal HddNp � Pump Date By Data TanKl 17040 MAPLE LN SE Greviry Trench O6I17/1998 1960 11/09/2012 No 17048 MAPLE LN SE Graviry Trench 04/23/7984 19&4 04/01/2013 No 17056 MAPLE LN SE Graviry Trench 07I28/1988 7961 04/01/2013 No 17075 MAPLE LN SE Gravity Trench O6I06/1983 1964 11/02/2010 No Existing tanks left in 1983, so likelycesspool 17080 MAPLE LN SE Pressure Bed OS/14Y1007 1974 OS/17/2012 No _ 17101 MAPLE LN SE Pump Trench 06/17/1988 1962 OS/18/2011 No 17116 MAPLE LN SE Gravity Trench 71/25/1987 1960 08/07/2010 No 17125 MAPLE LN SE Pressure Mound 07/27/2005 1973 OS/30/2013 No Passing compliance inspection in 2013 and 2008 17136 MAPLE LN SE Cesspool? 1968? 1968 11I06/2006 No 17146 MAPLE LN SE Graviry Trench 10/16/1979 1979 01/10/2004 No 3 compliance inspectlons done. Failed in 1997 and 1999 (prior to 2001, not required to be replaced for trenches being too deep). Passed in 2005 17151 MAPLE LN SE Graviry Trench O6/01/1983 1983 07112/2010 No Passing compliance inspection in 2010 and 2006. 17156 MAPLE LN SE Gravity Trench 071t7/1980 1980 10/13/2011 No 17011 MUSHTOWN RD SE Graviry Trench 09I08/1989 1960 OS/09/2012 No 17020 MUSHTOWN RD SE Graviry Trench 11/O6/2003 1961 12/14/2012 No 17025 MUSHTOWN RD SE Cesspool 1961? 1961 11/04/2011 07/17/2004 No Failing compliance inspection (or Cesspool 17p41 MUSHTOWN RD SE Pump Trench 07/02/1996 1962 01/25l2012 No 17055 MUSHTOWN RD SE Pump Trench 04/26/1999 7965 11/09/2012 No 17077 MUSHTOWN RD SE Pressure Bed 11/22/1999 1962 10I25/2017 No Passing compliance inspection in 1999. 17079MUSHTOWNRDSE GraviryTrench 10/14/1992 1962 OSI09/2072 No 17105 MUSHTOWN RD SE Pump Trench 07122/1998 1965 O8/09/2012 No 17121 MUSHTOWN RD SE Graviry Trench 11I20/1980 1981 08/16/2012 No Failing compliance inspection in 1999 (prior to 2001, not required to � be replaced for trenches being too deep). 17124 MUSHTOWN RD SE Gravity Trench OS/23/1983 1983 11/19/2012 No Passing compliance inspection in 1996. 17127 MUSHTOWN RD SE Pressure Bed 08/29/1994 1968 09/19/2009 No 17176 MUSHTOWN RD SE Graviry Trench 07/20/1978 1972 09/07/2010 No 7-20.78 septic pmt for repair - added lift station and trenches 17551 MUSHTOWN RD SE Cesspool? ? 1933 08116/2010 No 17181 PANAMA AVE SE Pump Trench 09/27/1982 1982 09127/2010 No 17215 PANAMA AVE SE Pump Trench 0712111983 1983 03/16/2012 No Failed compliance inspectlon Janl2001, but prior to Novf2001 the septic was not required to 6e replaced for trenches being too deep. 17220 PANAMA AVE SE Cesspool? 19627 1962 OS/15/2011 No 17233 PANAMA AVE SE Graviry Trench 08/23/1983 1983 12/01/2008 No 17240 PANAMA AVE SE Cesspool7 19627 1962 12/15/2012 No 17255 PANAMA AVE SE Graviry Trench 11/14/1978 1978 04/22Y1011 04/28/2023 No Failed compliance inspection 2013. 17260 PANAMA AVE SE Discharge 1964? 1964 12/15/2012 12/15/2006 No Discharge situation. On a pumping contrad to prevent discharge until situation ciry sewer available (so actually pump about once/month) 17280 PANAMA AVE SE Gravity Trench 10I25/1988 1968 07/OS/2012 08/31I2020 No Failed compliance inspection 2010. 17290 PANAMA AVE SE Cesspool? 19707 1970 08112/2013 No 17300 PANAMA AVE SE Cesspool 19737 1973 09/OS/2012 72/19I2007 No Failed compliance inspections 2002 and 2012. 17325 PANAMA AVE Cesspool? 1950? 1950 12/03/2009 No - �� & A �� engineering • planning • environmental • consfruction 701 Xenia Avenue South Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 Tel: 763�41-4800 Fax: 763-541-1700 December 4, 2013 Mr. Larry Poppler, PE — City Engineer City of Prior Lake 4646 Dakota Street Prior Lake, MN 55372 RE: Proposal to Provide Easement Acquisition Services City of Prior Lake 2014 Improvement Projects Dear Mr. Poppler: On behalf of WSB & Associates, Inc., we are pleased to respond to your request for proposal regarding the above-mentioned project. Per the Preliminary Report prepared by the City dated November 2013, a proposed utility easement thirty feet in width is needed along the north side of Panama Avenue to facilitate the installation of new sanitary sewer and watermain. The proposed easement will impact nine properties. The City is requesting assistance in the acquisition of this easement. Our proposal includes the following scope of services: Legal Descriptions WSB's survey group and registered Land Surveyors will prepare the legal descriptions necessary for preparing purchase agreements and recording the easements with Scott County. Parcel Sketches Parcel sketches will be necessary as part of the right of way acquisition process to illustrate precise ly where easements are being acquired. These sketches will be prepared by our survey group. Stakinq It is often beneficial for property owners to see firsthand what portion of their property is being acquired so we have included staking of the easement acquisition in our scope of services. In the event that the City needs to acquire the easements through the use of eminent domain, staking of the property acquisition will be required. 5t. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com Mr. Larry Poppler, PE December 4, 2013 Page 2 Letters. Meetings and Negotiations Both Penny and ,Jason will be involved with meeting with the impacted property owners and negotiating the purchase of easements on their property on behalf of the City. This includes sending out initial contact letters, preparing field title reports, on site meetings and preparation of formal offer letters. Assumptions: • Appraisal and appraisal review costs will be paid directly by the City and are not included in this bid. • Costs associates with obtaining title work are not included in the below estimate but generally run between $500 and $700 per parcel typically provided by the City Attorney. • Condemnation assistance/review, exhibits, testimony, reports/appendices are available at $95 to $125 an hour. This is for work in addition to the standard parcel information we provide through the final parcel file and the regular updates/status to the City which is included in the tasks above • WSB is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice, review, or services. Right of way conveyance document templates will be reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. WSB is proposing to complete the easement acquisition tasks on an hourly basis, in accordance with our fee schedule, for a total not-to-exceed fee of $24,020. The total fee is broken down as follows: Legal Descriptions $2,943.00 Parcel Sketches & base mapping $2,943.00 Field Work (tying in property monuments) $1,192.00 Staking $1,192.00 Letter, Meetings, Negotiations $15,750.00 Subtotal $24,020.00 Additional tasks outside of this scope of services would be billed at our standard hourly rates. Our staff is available to start on this work as soon as the City authorizes us to proceed. If you are in agreement with the terms as noted above, please sign where indicated below and return a copy to our office. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact me at 763-287-8520. Sincerely, WS & Associates, Inc. C�C./c�� ason C. Wedel, P.E. Senior Project Manager Mr. Larry Poppler, PE December 4, 2013 Page 3 Authorized City Representative B Title Date . ac THE TRAffIC STUDY COMPANY Technical Memorandum To: Larry Poppler, PE, City of Prior Lake Engineer From: Mike Spack, PE, PTOE Date: January 16, 2014 Re: Traffic Review of The Ponds & Thomas Ryan Memorial Park Tournaments Per your request, this memorandum analyzes the regional traffic impacts of a combined soccer/baseball tournament event on a Saturday at The Ponds and Thomas Ryan Memorial Park athletic complexes in Prior Lake near Mushtown Road. This combined event is the most traffic intensive activity expected at the athletic complexes. Conclusions & Recommendations During a large tournament, traffic on Musthown Road near Pondview Trail is expected to double from approximately 940 to 1,890 vehicles per day. Based on the analysis in this memorandum, the existing transportation network will operate acceptably from a capacity standpoint during a peak athletic event at The Ponds and Thomas Ryan Memorial Park athletic complexes. No improvements, such as turn lanes or stop signs, will be needed. While no physical improvements are necessary, police presence (either in squads or directing traffic) could allow for smoother traffic flow during peak periods. To accommodate a peak athletic event, it is forecast 783 parking stalls would be needed. Thomas Ryan Memorial Park has 309 stalls and The Ponds has 409 stalls, for a total of 718 stalls. However, this level of parking would be dependent on the exact scheduling of the games. The overFlow potential of 65 parked vehicles could be accommodated with public street parking. Traffic Forecasts According to the city website, there are four soccer fields and four baseball fields at Thomas Ryan Memorial Park and four soccer fields at The Ponds athletic fields. Here is other relevant data provided by the city: • Mushtown Road carries approximately 940 vehicles per day north of Pondview Trail. • A peak baseball tournament will attract approximately 200 vehicles during three different periods (one vehicle per player; which balances drop offs, leaving for lunch, and extra vehicles for grandparents versus carpooling with multiple players in one vehicle). This equates to 600 vehicles arriving and then 600 vehicles departing during the day (1,200 trips). • A peak soccer tournament will attract 72 teams with up to 18 players per team. It is reasonable to assume the tournament will attract one vehicle per player, which equates to approximately 1,300 vehicles arriving and then 1,300 vehicles departing during the day (2,600 trips). Based on this city supplied data, there could be 3,800 trips generated on a Saturday by a peak tournament event (1,900 vehicles entering and then exiting). According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 9 th Edition, an athletic complex will generate 30.34 vehicle trips per field in the Saturday peak hour with 48% entering and 52% exiting. Given the • . . . . . Spack Consulting 2 of 3 Prior Lake Athletic Fields Traffic Review combined twelve fields, a peak event is expected to generate 175 entering and 189 exiting in the peak hour. Based on regional population centers, existing traffic loads on the regional roadway network, and trip routing by various mapping programs (Google, Bing, and Mapquest); the expected travel distribution pattern is shown in Figure 1 for the existing condition and Figure 2 for the condition after Fish Point Road is extended to Mushtown Road. �,,��>�.:,� ., , t. <, ; ,, _ , �.-<,: „a,�- -< - . t? i��? a:.nv.wo-::u . � � � �' C . ..��Y � v. = -� /n. S � �+ow� � �tlrl k� Y• L. gTC's r � C ,�� a �. C , N,�;x.,a'�' t y � i Gi�v^s �� '� . _ ? , � �.,��,�e -- 55% �..,�w< 's�.._ � ��„ � _.� j w n �5 �� a � . � E i A 4 1ry � a � . � Fg . ,� � n y � k 4 �• . n .. � � � �L�'7V 5eva3e ,.,es e pd� 4ii!age Lale Ot d' S r. tis ,, y. F �. , . '.r: W.ttcws �! �. D 4 \. s . .� . : � .. . ParF n : _ t ;_ InPk%a7 � •f � � , - E � ': � � 5• . .. .. . . .. ... SJC* xbhe-: � A s ��f � ' S �- �. n) � � y �, � tvoodi� � �� F _ c 5.a: '. � aan ,1,� . . � �. .� �..,, �' �d F' <-. �� m � Boe.wnrMs _. �.�.- . E . , . iheT:N�Js , �� K ._ E ['no L'�k . ,c t _ _ S�V e , . e C e: �, c ii' Srfr�ol .__ ... 1 4 . n� _ .t� . Ays nrlHx. d � � � '4 1:. _ �':.v r _ . . .f T � r ' µ t � � ,,,a. �� - ... . , � r: � \ _ _..". " _ . . `� �' � (]1t'rit� i � 1G � �1MElK�dYC / � C .. C'e��x:-.a .k . � °.,.-.. __ at(1ea�r. � . . , � �k � Lnt.bY�'�+11e . __ � , � � f � : . 9d s '. . y ,. ti ,<��« � � � _'_'__ _. ._ _ . - c . . > ._ C ' . { ,.. _ � - � � �20 °' � ; ��, � Figure 1— Trip Distribution Pattern and Corridor Locations for Existing Conditions � „;� � �:., ��,�P�<<ati � < � _ a.��< , ��; � m�..�� ' ti. , �� - „�� , - _ �, ,�� , z� , o��. t _ ; c � Y _ �Yj? ".-" Fax Kv. GI �� R � v e:, � r :+ r .-� 4{J% . �, j r,ar lex �-; � s �� t..: ;� yS c J a '� :� d Ftm, .,, � . � �.� _ 4 R`� nC � � pC P � �' � ��. �. � yi:la.j�l k� L. ,U e^ �L�.l �5 hs�!� � ....�>. , . .� I � M 7y� a.�r Wibws L+ � '� . + �F �Yk , . . - 'E� r IipdpF'la5 . _ -. . S .s Y bhe'�t .r � _ �J � � � �� . . . . . fmvfield S c+.�e ` L ��,� �.��. , t � .� ' v -' Wo(�3r ia4 &�' .., �.- 1 ky �' �� '' � �.� . c . � Boatworks .. j �. : rh. F��ads � "- F ,�;. � � � �. , . . =. ? "c �, T , . p 5 ho {�•.. _. _ . -_ G e?�` y_ . _ , ' ,£ As '1 F � 3,< - ` � G f y �� _ �,�;�� ; = 15%�1 . `� ... . �;�.�,.. �gn":,,� � �, g,,, ^ti � ; :: . . __ c' � , : D n r,�m �� __ - . .. MCrii.�r....�.i�f -. � �'1P��'IR'lp . a. Gleary . � � L t. ty �'uhe v c ��: .... . . _ : � '. � : .. ' �' '�i . ' : . , : i , s yr r ;` ....___ ' � ,._._ . . _. . i m . � � i 'k �,�„ _____(,?.—__.I _i k,°;, � � 1 7 �/0 ' Figure 2—Trip Distribution Pattern and Corridor Locations with Fish Point Road Extension Spack Consulting 3 of 3 Prior Lake Athletic Fields Traffic Review Combining the above traffic volumes generated by a peak athletic event with the above distribution pattern results in the traffic forecasted to be added by a peak event. These results are shown in Table 1. Table 1 also shows forecasts after Fish Point Road is extended to Fish Point Road. Table 1— Vehicles Added to each Road Corridor by a Saturday Peak Athletic Event •... �. •. . � - . . . �- . . � • • � A Mushtown Rd south of Park Nicollet Ave 475 475 44 48 475 475 44 48 B Toronto Ave south of Village Lake Dr 1045 1045 96 105 855 855 79 86 C Mushtown Rd north of 190 St 380 380 35 38 285 285 26 29 D Fish Point Rd west of Eagle Creek Ave 0 0 0 0 285 285 26 29 Traffic Analvsis According to Exhibit 16-14 of the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manua12010, a two lane road, such as Mushtown Road or Toronto Avenue can accommodate up 11,500 vehicles per day. Mushtown Road between Park Nicollet Avenue and Pondview Trail will have approximately 1,890 vehicles per day on it during a Saturday peak athletic event. Although the residents will notice a doubling of traffic on Mushtown Road, the corridor can physically accommodate that traffic load as a two lane road with no turn lanes. It should be noted the extension of Fish Point Road will not result in decreased traffic on Mushtown Road due to the distribution patterns shown in Figures 1 and 2. When Mushtown Road is reconstructed, it is recommended options for making the road feel narrower (such as planting trees, adding sidewalks or trails, narrower travel lanes) be explored to reduce travel speeds along the residential stretch of the corridor. No traffic volume data is available for the other three study corridors but their traffic volumes are expected to be the same or less than the Mushtown Road corridor and will have ample capacity to accommodate the peak athletic event traffic. No traffic problems are expected, but an off duty police officer could be hired to direct traffic at key intersections in the future if unacceptable operations arise. ParkinA Analvsis According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Parking Generation Manual, 4 Edition, an athletic complex will generate the 85 percentile peak parking demand of 65.20 parking stalls per athletic field on a Saturday. To accommodate this level of demand would require 522 parking stalls for the eight fields at Thomas Ryan Memorial Park and 261 parking stalls for the four fields at The Ponds athletic Fields. However, this level of parking would be dependent on the exact scheduling of the games. To accommodate a peak athletic event, it is forecast 783 parking stalls would be needed. Thomas Ryan Memorial Park has 309 stalls and The Ponds has 409 stalls, for a total of 718 stalls. The overFlow potential of 65 parked vehicles could be accommodated with public street parking. For peak events, a shuttle bus system could be deployed to ensure parking at the four lots are all completely utilized.